70 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Vassago, why do you keep enlightening people? People were happier when you trolled.

[Jestun]

Livewyr, on 16 September 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Jestun, this is where I'm going to throw a bone to the TT crowd (because in a small way, I'm like them.)

I like working with Weapons from battletech, as close to their original design as possible, and similarly with Armor.

I'm rather happy with the choice made to:
Increase RoF (because I don't want to shoot every weapon at 10 second intervals..)
Not changing the weapon damage values (much) ->
-> Double armor (so mechs don't die too quickly to the increased RoF)

I personally think they've struck a good balance of making armor worth having, while still being within 1 multiple, with weapons maintaining (mostly) TT values but quicker RoF.

----------------------------------------
They would've had the long individual road to take bringing everything to balance.. no matter where the fulcrum was. The fulcrum has been placed (and I personally like the placement) and just about everything is balanced around it- UAC5 being too "heavy" and flamer being too "light.." Those are really the only adjustments that need to happen anymore.

LRMs need tweaked in their mechanics, but their numbers are good IMO.

If MWO were aiming to replicate the TT game, like the Space Hulk game that came out recently, I would fully understand sticking to values designed for turn based combat with dice rolls deciding the outcome.

A real-time FPS is an entirely different story.

[Livewyr]

Jestun, on 16 September 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

If MWO were aiming to replicate the TT game, like the Space Hulk game that came out recently, I would fully understand sticking to values designed for turn based combat with dice rolls deciding the outcome.

A real-time FPS is an entirely different story.

It's very different, not entirely different. (Engine ratings are still determining speed the same way, for example.)

And in the ways that it is different, it is being addressed. (Damage increase on some weapons, heat reductions on others.. etc..DOUBLE armor)

[Ahja]

This is easy and why it keeps being such a big problem I will never understand.

1) go back to Battletech/Mechwarrior weapons spec's.
2) tell anyone who wants to change them "TO BAD".
3) do not play the "balance game" that has killed the PVP in other MMO's.
4) get used to the fact that 30 years of Battletech/Mechwarrior is not the place you as a dev. will be making your big mark and that players have loved this for that long for a reason.

STOP FOOLING AROUND WITH WHAT WORKS

FORGET BALANCE IN MMO PVP IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Now put it right, launch the thing and stop fooling around.

[Wolfways]

Ahja, on 16 September 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

This is easy and why it keeps being such a big problem I will never understand.

1) go back to Battletech/Mechwarrior weapons spec's.
2) tell anyone who wants to change them "TO BAD".
3) do not play the "balance game" that has killed the PVP in other MMO's.
4) get used to the fact that 30 years of Battletech/Mechwarrior is not the place you as a dev. will be making your big mark and that players have loved this for that long for a reason.

STOP FOOLING AROUND WITH WHAT WORKS

FORGET BALANCE IN MMO PVP IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Now put it right, launch the thing and stop fooling around.

The only thing i'd add to that is that it's fine to increase a weapons rate of fire as long as you reduce the damage and heat generated by an equal percentage.

[Top Secret Fifth Account Shhh]

Lotharian, on 15 September 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

rather than nerfing the weapons that work... buff the stuff no one uses

Edited by Top Secret Fifth Account Shhh, 16 September 2013 - 10:09 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Deathlike, on 16 September 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Vassago, why do you keep enlightening people? People were happier when you trolled.

I have become the MWO's version of the undertaker.

[Jestun]

The "balance is a bad thing" crowd makes me weep for humanity.

[The Boz]

Jestun, on 17 September 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

The "balance is a bad thing" crowd makes me weep for humanity.

The "stop nerfing, buff everything" crowd is a close second.

[Jestun]

Not sure about a close second, but it's certainly up there. Suggesting making a dozen or so changes to bring every other weapon up to the level of one or two weapons is certainly crazy.

[Almond Brown]

Hythos, on 16 September 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Stories? Possibly.
WoW closed-beta was 10 years ago, and I think the CB-forums were wiped. Not sure I can find that info.

PGI stories:
"Gauss Rifle is a sniper weapon that requires a charge-time like a sniper holding their breath before firing".
"Firing N of X weapon simultaneously generates more than 3x that weapons' heat".
"Clans are being developed to the intended spirit of the Clans, not the actual Battletech stats".
"Our Double Heatsinks don't really dissipate 2x the heat".

Those are just a couple, but would you like links?

And you will eventually make a valid point right? That list is one that attempts to deal with issues as they arose. But of course, you and your Team of Armchair Dev's would have foreseen them all from the start and solved every issue before it ever arose, right? Please, now your the one telling stories...

[Hythos]

Almond Brown, on 17 September 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

And you will eventually make a valid point right? That list is one that attempts to deal with issues as they arose. But of course, you and your Team of Armchair Dev's would have foreseen them all from the start and solved every issue before it ever arose, right? Please, now your the one telling stories...

I knew people from FPS games like Bukakefield and ModernBorefare were dumb... so thank you for showing how much.
Ok, I wll use sml wrds 4 u! <3
PGI sais to mak up sum stry b/c they wnt plyrs 2 b hpy. Ppl frm FPS gms r 2 l33t, n n00bs r 2 dum. PGI sais wnt moar FPS plyrs, so PGI mak FPS sn1pr gam w/GR n sais 'GR sn1pr rfl nao so MW n BF n COD plyrs can ply 2' instd of sais 'GR nao hs dly b/c r 4 blx duh b/c we wnt it 2'. Wud PGI sais GR nao dly 4 blx, is GTG...

Crud.. I almost had that spelled out correctly; I forgot people like use AOL-speak GTG as "got to go" MLOS (mommy looking over shoulder) instead of the age-old "good to go". I hope this clears things up for you in a manner you might more easily understand <3

[Baba Yogi]

Trust me, next nerf is gonna be ac20. Its is the only high direct damage weapon left.

[Clit Beastwood]

cut the damage of every weapon by 50%

Hythos, on 17 September 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

I knew people from FPS games like Bukakefield and ModernBorefare were dumb... so thank you for showing how much.
Ok, I wll use sml wrds 4 u! <3
PGI sais to mak up sum stry b/c they wnt plyrs 2 b hpy. Ppl frm FPS gms r 2 l33t, n n00bs r 2 dum. PGI sais wnt moar FPS plyrs, so PGI mak FPS sn1pr gam w/GR n sais 'GR sn1pr rfl nao so MW n BF n COD plyrs can ply 2' instd of sais 'GR nao hs dly b/c r 4 blx duh b/c we wnt it 2'. Wud PGI sais GR nao dly 4 blx, is GTG...

Crud.. I almost had that spelled out correctly; I forgot people like use AOL-speak GTG as "got to go" MLOS (mommy looking over shoulder) instead of the age-old "good to go". I hope this clears things up for you in a manner you might more easily understand <3

holy lord that makes by brain hurt to read that!

[Tex1013]

Hexenhammer, on 15 September 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

Balance! Balance! I want balance!

Define balanced. Spell it out for us people.

this post happened on the first page, so it may be somewhat out of date by now, but it spurred an interesting question in my mind (at least to me), one I've been thinking about a lot lately, due to MWO's dubious history of "balancing", and playing Planetside 2, another game with a very dubious approach to game/weapon "balance"...

what is balance? In my long running game-player opinion, "balance" is...


Game designers deciding WHAT the game experience is intended to be like, and then tailoring the components of the game system so that the game experience actually turns out more or less that way.


Lately, I'm discovering that the "open-beta" design process, whether intentionally or not, seems to be encouraging PLAYERS to design the game experience. While this usually *sounds* like a great idea (Hey! Lets let the PLAYERS decide how the game should play! THEN THEY'LL ALL WANT TO PLAY AND WE'LL MAKE A TON OF MONEY!! HOOORAAAYYY!!!), it turns out, players are a viciously divided and almost titanically fickle lot, and this has, in my opinion, been the downfall of many an open beta design process.

I am, of late, FIRMLY of the belief, that players should not be allowed to design games that are not being designed BY the players. In other words, if I'm not *programming* the thing, or at the very least, I don't work for the company developing the game, then I shouldn't be allowed to tell people how the game should be designed. This isn't necessarily because I don't have good ideas. Maybe I have a strong background in game design, and it's true, I *am* the audience the game designers presumably want to attract to their game. But in the end, it may be more detrimental to the overall game and it's appeal by letting me decide how things work in the game, than it would be to just decide what the game designers want, and then alienate the people that don't like that kind of game.

I don't play a lot of JRPG's. I've seen some, I've played a few (dragon warrior on the NES was awesome), but truth be told, they're just not really my thing. It's not that they're bad, or terrible, in fact, some of them are rather extraordinary pieces of storytelling and game design. But, for whatever reason, certain elements, stereotypes, game design styles, just aren't enjoyable FOR ME. I don't demand that these games never exist, and I don't demand that they change the game to fit more my style. Instead, I just don't buy them. And the people that *do* love them are just fine with that. They spend money on the game, I don't, the developer gets money from the people that it made the game for, and doesn't from the people it didn't. All is cool.

Mechwarrior Online really needs a solid decision from the developers, I think. Maybe they have one, but if they do, I'm not feeling it. I feel, like from the moment the game went into open beta, they've been adjusting game elements based on feedback from the players.

I want this! killing should be like this! I hate this! This is too fast!! this is too slow! More this!! Less this!! No, you're a jerk, Less this, more of that!! YOUR FACE IS A JERK!! More of what I said, less of what he said! blah blah yakkity fus roh dah!!

I really wish, at some point, some of the devs would just say - you know what, SCREW IT!! The game is supposed to be like THIS! If we want time to kill low, THEN WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT LOW!! If we want time to kill to be high, THEN WE'LL MAKE IT HIGH!

If we want MWO to use all TT btech values, then THAT'S what we're gonna do. And if you don't like it, go play Skyrim/Worldoftanks/planetside2/barbieislandadventure, or whatever your bag is.

Then, they do a huge pass across all the weapons, all the armor values, all the weapon cooldown times, all the objective modes, etc, etc...and then say HEY!! THIS is Mechwarrior Online! Play it if you love it, learn to love it an play it if you want to, or DON'T!! the end.

Then, take the money they earned, based on whether the ideas they came up with were popular enough to make money, or go home empty handed, when they come to realize that what they envisioned for the game wasn't compelling enough for everyone.

Leaving design changes in the hands of the uninformed, EXTREMELY biased, hostile, suspicious, contentious (and occasionally unwashed) public seems to be a terrible trend in recent game design, and overall, I'm not convinced yet that it works well.

[Top Secret Fifth Account Shhh]

Vassago Rain, on 16 September 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

I've made a picture to illustrate what their change actually meant for the game.



So, as you can see, the UAC and AC20 didn't move, but gauss rifles are rarer than hen's teeth right now, for many, many reasons. They weren't uber before, and I had long since traded mine for UACs (I knew they were gonna swing the bat too hard).

If you think back to when the patches hit, you saw a whole ton of miseries, 3Ds, and old catapults running AC10s as a straight swap for their gauss rifles, and some were doing bizarre large pulse laser replacements of PPCs. This is becaue people don't understand what's really going on, or how to build mechs (they copypaste), but now word's gotten out, and everybody's boating the remaining viable weapons, which in MWO's ballistic heavy environment at the middle of mount tryhard means UACs.

So when they put UAC down with the gauss rifle, everybody will switch to AC20 robots. When they downgrade AC20, ER larges will dominate. Then what? Are we going to look at the almost viable weapons when the current viable ones are all gone? Perhaps the next phase is a return to medium laser XL awesomes.

Rather than make it so I have less viable choices, they should give me more. I want there to be a choice between the good ballistics. I want to do the math on whether PPC or ER large is right for my build. I want viable pulse lasers, flamers that do something, missiles that aren't locked at no damage for half a year...

Speaking of that, remember when someone thought it'd be a good idea to outright remove all missiles from the game with super low damage? That was fun, wasn't it? Because they were 'OP and broken.' Don't fix them - remove them. Make them a non-option.

Actually, using your own logic, the ppl who were running a AC/10 or 2 AC/5s in addition to the old PPCs on poptarts or turrets were actually ahead of the meta by another level of meta cuz they saw the UAC as next.

Metaception yo gg

The real pros play 19 steps ahead, they already finished a round when most noobs are still walking out of base

[Vassago Rain]

I told you about the new meta, bro. I warned you.

Now it's all AC20 and AC5. Next, AC20 and AC5 nerfed with excessive cooldowns, so everybody plays with LBX.

[Krivvan]

The problem with buffing things rather nerfing is that people already complain about the game being too fast and mechs going down too quickly. You may be able to achieve balance by buffing rather than nerfing, but it would also mean more players going down in seconds.

[Tezcatli]

They have been buffing other weapons. But by small degrees. There's only so much work they put out in a patch. And people tend to ignore it unless it's a huge buff or a nerf of any kind.

[Bata]

Krivvan, on 17 September 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

The problem with buffing things rather nerfing is that people already complain about the game being too fast and mechs going down too quickly. You may be able to achieve balance by buffing rather than nerfing, but it would also mean more players going down in seconds.

I've gone down in seconds plenty of times and it didn't stop me from playing the game. Hell, I've been one shot by splat cats in my Awesome (an assault mech) plenty of times and didn't come whining how OP they were. When I started playing it took me two weeks to get my first kill, so the steep learning curve didn't push me away either. When they nerfed everything there is to nerf, I left. The introduction of more and more arbitrary penalties does not balance the game. It only changes the flavour of the month weapon or build every once in a while. Not to mention how unreasonable is to be trying to balance the game when you do not have collisions. Does anybody still remember those and the fact that they were actually important once? Or are we going to nerf them as well when we bring them back, in order to have people not dying quick?