209 replies to this topic

[John MatriX82]

My list (awfully long)

-Unwanted third person view; meh at least it's disabled for competitive 12mans, but I'll never forgive how PGI has put that choice in our face against our will

Convoluted mechanics like:
-Heat penalties, thus:
-Lack of hardpoint restrictions
-Movement nerf (i can't stand to get stuck against rocks that are as tall as the foot of my mech!) along with:
-non-vectorable jumpjets; now you trust forwards, so if you backpedal but get stuck into anything, flashing JJs will nicely throw up back into the face of who's charging you
-We have 3PV but not a DAMN REAR VIEW CAMERA?

-nerfhammer or total uselessness of several weapons like:

• gauss discharge mechanic
  
• PPC/ERPPC
  
• pulse lasers in general

-SRMs still without splash damage, along with the dull tube-like firing pattern; the old "wave" pattern paid off MUCH MORE when you managed to get from 150m to 0 and it was extremely helpful vs the lights; shoot a light now it feels like spitting peanuts!

-SRMs and LRMs should be limited by the actual number of available tubes in a certain mech section; if you have a maximum of 10 tubes, you either can mount any SRM rack up to a SRM6 and LRM5 and LRM10. No multiple salvo firing, limit completely modular launchers so that LRMs can be balanced off to a 50 max salvo, that would allow smaller launchers to stay competitive and would avoid abysimal LRM (or SRMs) rains that are cyclic to the game

-The above has pulled us into the actual ballistic metagame that I can't stand and that won't last because they'll nerf also the acs..

-Cbill nerf along with extended wait time due to elo/matchmaker and the damn new ready button

-ELO hell (forces you to effectively employ rather few variants among the exped/available ones, to stay competitive)

-Non-class weighting matchmaker, general race of arms towards hordes of assaults; weight limits will only constrict players to forgive about exping certain chassis/variants with friends.

-lack of real bonuses to balance plagued chassis like:

• Awesomes need a model rework; otherwise make that the shoulders are part of the arm mesh to reduce side torso size, reduce CT size hitbox, revamp engine limits for 8-series -Victors anyone?-, lift heat penalty for 3xPPC/ERPPC fire
  
• Hunchbacks need some sort of armor or health bonus to the Hunch (not for the 4SP of course)
  
• Dragons need something similar for the CT

-Stupid sizing/mech scaling choices like:

• Trebuchet size/too tall
  
• Cicadas might need a reduction in size
  
• Dragons, Catapults, Quickdraws are way too big
  
• Stalkers are too tiny

-Hit detection still lacking (especially on spiders, cents)

-Game modes: set up defenses on base caps, make conquest to allow respawns to the owned points, create asymmetrical scenarios.. it's BORING atm!!!!!

-Double heatsink/Single heatsink mechanics..

And the list could grow, but in the end all of the above completely halted me to invest in the Phoenix pack (along with the general feeling that those mech designs are going to be plagued by silly hitbox choices or scaling problems; I haven't exped neither Kintaroes nor Orions for this -they aren't competitive as they should-); I've even halted buying anything with MC until I don't see this game getting better with CW or other improvements, if it ever will, but I'm here since the CB and still the HBK shoots north to the reticule, it's still there to shred my hopes anytime I field that mech.

If it wasn't from my merc corp friends, I'd have gladly left this game a long time ago. I still like it, but sum all of the above together and sometimes I'd like to have never played any previous MW title so that I don't have any stomach to stay here trying to make PGI realize that they have a gem in their hands that they aren't shaping, they are wasting it.

[Ghogiel]

Imperius, on 06 October 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

No the ELO brackets should just work. I should never see trial mechs on my team while the whole other team is full of customized effective mechs. I do not know my ELO but I figure it must be high and it's all achieved in the pug environment. In my ILYA the only heavy and my primary mech I play I have 111 wins and 83 losses giving me a +50 ELO difference and a 57.22 winning percentage. 231 kills and 111 deaths 2.08 K/D ELO is supposed to go by weight class and this is the only heavy I play.

I will get matched with some of the worst players I've ever seen. Missing an Atlas at point blank, bunching up like a heard of sheep where no one can move or fall back if need be, running 9 laser hunchbacks and completely overheating after the first shot, the lights never scout, I know the K/D is a non factor I just added it to show I'm doing my part. I run Gauss x2 Medium Laser x3 Ilya. I always aim for cockpits and often get them, and if I miss it counts as a CT hit. I do sit back because I am not set up to brawl it is strictly a sniper build.

I thought ELO was supposed to match me with people on my skill level, against people of my level. That is not the case, because when I get matched with the players in trial mechs asking how do you use night vision and {Scrap} that's a here's your sign moment.

Really getting to higher Elo is not likely achieved in just 50 more wins than losses.

You could be about a 1400 with that. The wins you did have could be against players that you were statistically more likely to beat anyway, meaning your rating could have moved up very little. Conversely you could have lost matches that you were statistically predicted to win and your Elo could have dropped a lot more.

Secondly the W/L ratio itself is kinda low even for pugging. And really you want to be looking at 1000 more wins than losses at a ratio like that in a weight class to have almost certainly moved you up at least a few hundred Elo points. Or you know, they actually show us our Elo rating :/.

This basically means you could very well be, and imo likely, in an Elo range where you get picks from the largest population of players, this is broadest spectrum of skills as well. A mix of scrub premades, new players who don't suck and are moving up, older players who don't play much and are still trying to get out of Elo hell, like yourself, or anything in between.

Edited by Ghogiel, 07 October 2013 - 03:05 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

The only concern for me is ECM - still even after 8 months...and the ATD didn't give me any hopes that a more brainer version will ever made it.

All other reasons that kept me away from playing, but RL are removed.
There is hardly any build left that could be mentioned as I-Win-Easy Kill - Cheese... how the Devs achieved that are maybe not the best approach but it worked....

SO - MWO is as good as it was in Closed Beta...it is fun again - although i really want to have more long term incentive

(people complainig about ER-PPCs and Gauss - have a curious kind of self reflection however - I know that it is subjective - but I've told you that I played this combination on the same Mech since August 2012...and currently it feels right - not OP like in the last months)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2013 - 03:14 AM.

[Too Much Love]

I'm really losing interest in the game.

In fact, I like it. I think that weapons are 70% balanced now, nothing is OP, you can mount almost every weapon, excluding Gauss and Large Pulses.

The main issue is balancing. it's really terrible. I don't feel my participation in the game. Matches are absolutely predictable and your input doesn't matter.

[Lightfoot]

Ghost Heat is unreasonably applied and should follow Battletech Stock Mech normals at least. 3x PPCs or ERPPCs are normal stock configurations and 4x Large Lasers, and these should not receive a Ghost Heat penalty. Anyway, if we can't get rid of Ghost heat it needs to be applied with some lore appropriate logic, not a nerf-hammer.

Gauss Rifle de-sync. Again, unreasonably applied and makes the Gauss for Mouse-users only. I can accept the charge-up as somewhat of a lore-emulation, but Gauss-Rifles do not discharge after 1 second, that's a PGI fantasy from Quake-like shooters, MWO is Battletech. If the Gauss does discharge it would be after a Battletech full turn of 5-10 seconds.

I understand the need to balance MWO, but the end result has to be closer to Battletech and MechWarrior norms which is where the mechs and hardpoint inspiration come from. Right now MWO's stock AWS-9M explodes on the second salvo and that's not going to get it done.

[Imperius]

Ghogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 03:03 AM, said:

Really getting to higher Elo is not likely achieved in just 50 more wins than losses.

You could be about a 1400 with that. The wins you did have could be against players that you were statistically more likely to beat anyway, meaning your rating could have moved up very little. Conversely you could have lost matches that you were statistically predicted to win and your Elo could have dropped a lot more.

Secondly the W/L ratio itself is kinda low even for pugging. And really you want to be looking at 1000 more wins than losses at a ratio like that in a weight class to have almost certainly moved you up at least a few hundred Elo points. Or you know, they actually show us our Elo rating :/.

This basically means you could very well be, and imo likely, in an Elo range where you get picks from the largest population of players, this is broadest spectrum of skills as well. A mix of scrub premades, new players who don't suck and are moving up, older players who don't play much and are still trying to get out of Elo hell, like yourself, or anything in between.

57% win rate is high for a system that tries to keep you at 50/50. The ELO number +50 I got from http://www.3dkingdom...m/chess/elo.htm baised off my heavies win/loss yeah they have different numbers and I don't know the medium . If it's anything like LOL then 57% is high ELO... Just saying...

[psihius]

The only problem I have with MWO is the matchmaking that puts me with total noobs and placing me against a middle-level team because of my lance's high ELO. That results exclusively in the enemy stop rolling us over again and again without any chance to win. I don't consider matches, when my lance takes out 9 enemy mech's and we still lose, normal. I had 2 of my teammates just ragequit at that point. Sorry, but watching how 3 half-dead robots take out 8 our teammates due to the fact, that we were teamed up with total noobs, was heartbreaking.
I play just because I have some premium still left and I got my hands on Hero Atlas, so I started to master my Atlases. Beyond that, my only hope is that with Phoenix pack release all those skilled good players will just flow in and matchmaking will start to put us together in proper teams. If that will not happen - sorry, I will not be playing much untill CW is introduced with it's natural filters that will filter out beginners and casual players - I will be staying clear of pug matches until matchmaking makes a distinction between a total noob, a casual player with low ELO, a middle-skilled player and a hardcore pro. Matchmaking should not put a hardcore pro with a noob in the same match.

It is the only real problem at the moment, that is not really addressed. Everything else is being worked on in one or other manner and is just a matter of time. All those nuances with LRM, Spiders and so on are important, but they are not a gamebreaker - it is more or less balanced, you can own a spider via AC/20 (I do it all the time lately - forget lasers, forget SSRM's - AC/20 to the spiders face and that little squid like tentacle happy peace of metal is toast. Just needs some training and dedication - it's a skill, an acquired one).

Gamebreaker is the player matching - however proficient I and my lance are, we cannot play 4 vs 12, and we have to play like that a lot. It is a common site for us: 8 friendly mech's engage enemy - in 30-40 seconds there are no friendly mech's left and our lance now takes fire from 8 to 12 mech's (believe me, the later is much more often). Yeah, we pull some miracles from time to time - the pure chance of running a medium lance, voice comms and me getting into hardcore commanding rage (think Full Metal Jacket - the barrack scene) and the obvious overconfidence on the enemy teams part - that sometimes provides us with the ability to pull off miracles. But sorry, we are not magicians...

P.S. Just to add on the PPC/ER PPC and Ghost Heat - I sometimes run my 2 x PPC + 2 x ER PPC Stalker. To a devastating efficiency. No Ghost Heat, heat penalties, increased PPC/ER PPC heat or return of the minimal 90m for PPC made any dent on that - I just don't run them alpha-striking, actually moving through the battlefield a lot and not staying long at one place. 400-600+ damage? No sweat. 900 - possible when there are no noobs on the battlefield - people don't die too fast It's all about the skill - it makes all the difference. Again, it's the problem of matchmaking putting people with too much of a difference in skill against each other. Taking out 2 atlases one by one by myself in a 4G hunchback should say it all.

Edited by psihius, 07 October 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Imperius, on 07 October 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

57% win rate is high for a system that tries to keep you at 50/50. The ELO number +50 I got from http://www.3dkingdom...m/chess/elo.htm baised off my heavies win/loss yeah they have different numbers and I don't know the medium . If it's anything like LOL then 57% is high ELO... Just saying...

Firstly it's not an acronym.

You cannot calculate your true Elo based on W/L alone. You need to input the opponents Elo rating to figure out how many points you move up or down with that particular matching. Even so...


57% over 190 matchs is not even near high Elo. Your link even demonstrates this.


You've barely even played enough matches to be correctly seeded at all. With 111/83 that calculator tells me you would be rated at 1350.

I just typed in 1000 wins and 500 losses> and it gave me a +120.

So even after 1500 games at that ratio I would be rated at 1420. On a scale of 0-2600

In short you are barely above average.

[AnarchyBurger]

Bad fixes to the problems that come up such as.
-ECM fix=BAP (which is ok sort of) but could have been a better fix to split the abilities between the two ecm modes more.
-Gauss/PPC etc=convoluted mechanics when convergance fixes would have most likely saved all
-LRMs... Christ where to begin. Essentially nerfed in a full circle until you had practically the same amount of damage done differently
-Machine guns-once again bad cycle of buff/nerf
-Etc.
Non-addressed problems
-certain maps still way to big=mordor and alpine could use trimming, particularly for cap mode.
-Weird cycle of fixing/breaking HSR on various mechs.
-Etc.
Lack of very needed variation
-Game modes
-Trophies
-anything unique, unlock weapons, paint, etc.

In general it feels like PGIs priorities suck.

[Imperius]

Ghogiel, on 07 October 2013 - 04:25 AM, said:

Firstly it's not an acronym.

You cannot calculate your true Elo based on W/L alone. You need to input the opponents Elo rating to figure out how many points you move up or down with that particular matching. Even so...


57% over 190 matchs is not even near high Elo. Your link even demonstrates this.


You've barely even played enough matches to be correctly seeded at all. With 111/83 that calculator tells me you would be rated at 1350.

I just typed in 1000 wins and 500 losses> and it gave me a +120.

So even after 1500 games at that ratio I would be rated at 1420. On a scale of 0-2600

In short you are barely above average.

No {Scrap} I can't calculate my ELO. Glad you think you know more about it than me cause you don't, we both don't cause we don't know half the info we need. I probably will never reach the so called number of games you think I need to have, since at the moment this game is pretty much {Scrap} and I try not to play too much, yet I love BT so I still play but not long enough to get mad a quit for good. I know a lot of the time me and my friend carry most of the pugs getting between 50%-70% of the kills in the match often. Average players don't carry pugs. You can try to put me down or claim I'm average but I can tell you in my opinion I think you're totally wrong. If you think a 12v12 group with teams is a more accurate ELO then please show me that more play 12v12 to the pug queues. If you have team A who is always better than team B and team A vs B 70-% of the time winning and goes into the queues with a skewed ELO. While I constantly vs PUG and have never done a 12v12 versing the majority of the player base with a 57% win rate.

TL;DR You think I'm average. I think I'm above average. So I'm going to agree to disagree and we leave it at that.

[Ghogiel]

Imperius, on 07 October 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

No {Scrap} I can't calculate my ELO. Glad you think you know more about it than me cause you don't, we both don't cause we don't know half the info we need. I probably will never reach the so called number of games you think I need to have, since at the moment this game is pretty much {Scrap} and I try not to play too much, yet I love BT so I still play but not long enough to get mad a quit for good. I know a lot of the time me and my friend carry most of the pugs getting between 50%-70% of the kills in the match often. Average players don't carry pugs. You can try to put me down or claim I'm average but I can tell you in my opinion I think you're totally wrong. If you think a 12v12 group with teams is a more accurate ELO then please show me that more play 12v12 to the pug queues. If you have team A who is always better than team B and team A vs B 70-% of the time winning and goes into the queues with a skewed ELO. While I constantly vs PUG and have never done a 12v12 versing the majority of the player base with a 57% win rate.

TL;DR You think I'm average. I think I'm above average. So I'm going to agree to disagree and we leave it at that.

Statistically, it's extremely unlikely you are high Elo with less than 200 matches played.

[Zyllos]

• Pin point accuracy when firing multiple weapons
  
• Heat applied incorrectly (includes Ghost Heat)
  
• Hardpoints too open, leads to useless variants and mechs
  
• GECM, LRMs, NARC, TAG, and BAP mechanics are much too binary
  
• Poorly implemented critical hit system
  
• Bad, insufficient weapon mechanics (LBX, Pulse Lasers, missile weapons)

The order is significant, as I view the largest issues with MWO in this order.

[Dirkdaring]

Most has been said already but:

When I run solo, I get put on one side of nearly every map 90% of the time. I'm so sick of starting on the SW side of frozen city its maddening. On the flipside, when my group gets on we start on the other side 90% of the time.

I think whats going on is they start with a premade and thats loaded automatically into one side of the map. The other side then gets solo people with high ELO rating to counter.

Randomize the first group placement a little better, and I don't think anyone would mind a little longer wait to group premades vs each other then filling with solo.

Edited by Dirkdaring, 07 October 2013 - 06:28 AM.

[Dr Herbert West]

#1 through #10: 3PV. When 3PV was introduced, without the option of 1PV only queues, I quit this game, and haven't logged in since. I will not play this game until 3PV is either removed, or 1PV public queues are made available. I don't care that the 1PV only 12v12 queues are available. I mostly pug because I don't have alot of time to play during peak hours, and when I do, the guys I play with can't form a 12 man group. On a personal level, I feel like 3PV only pug queues are like a slap in the face. I also feel cheated since I did spend money on this game under false premises (i.e. that I'd never have to play against 3PV players).

#11: Gauss Charge. This is a terrible mechanic that makes the GR useless outside of dual GR configs. As many posters have pointed out, it eliminates effective synergy with other weapons. Basically, it pigeonholes ballistic mechs into either dual GR boats or UAC/AC5 carriers. Even if 3PV wasn't in the game, this one would make me loose interest in the game.

#12: Ghost Heat. Its still a bad idea, and with the PPC heat nerfs, its even worse than it was before. Ghost heat effectively killed the viability/competitiveness of most Stalker configs. So, like GR charge, this thing reduces configuration options and pigeonholes heavy mechs with only a few energy HPs.

[MonkeyDCecil]

Match Maker, for the love of god. I am so tired of having matches, in witch one teams has 6 lights, and the other has maybe two. WTF. How does that even happen. Why cant they get their **** start. There are more then this, but I am really tired of this.

[Almond Brown]

Rhent, on 06 October 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

You guys are all on an island, expect to have the post sent to K-Town and posters getting warnings. How dare any of you use the forums to critique game balance decisions. This forum is only for White Knights.

White Knights and Drama Queens.

Imperius, on 06 October 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

No the ELO brackets should just work. I should never see trial mechs on my team while the whole other team is full of customized effective mechs.

So if a High ELO players selects a Trial Mech in his/her best weight class, they can't play with or against you? Ok then...

[Sidekick]

One thing that hasn´t been issued yet:

The modification system
While interesting at first glance, it streamlines mechs and gameplay too much, making mechs with bad silouette (Awesome, Trebuchet, Hunchback) less viable. It also pushes a easy to obtain FOTM-mentality that favours the next easy High-Alpha-Build.
While I am aware that the mod system is part of the Mechwarrior-PC-Lore and is in it since... ever, MWO clearly shows that it is really a large hinderance. Modified mechs couldn´t be used in a matchmaker balancing "Battle Value", and balancing by weight is completely impossible.

Every try to balance the modification system has failed thus far. And while there are some mathhammer-pros out here claiming that they know the formula to get it right, I seriously doubt that this will fix the problem.

From my point of view, a stock-mod-system featuring mechs with stock loadouts and upgrades would improve following aspects:
- The need to collect a wider selection of mechs
- role warfare
- viability of different mechs
- High-Alpha-Mechanics
- Ghost Heat and other Band-Aid*
- Matchmaking (by using and adapting a BV system)

And: I know that this will not happen. Most of the players love the mod system while ironically, they hate the meta asprung from it.

*Apparently, the plural of Band-Aid is banned here. What the *****?

Edited by Sidekick, 07 October 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[Kaijin]

Sidekick, on 07 October 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

I know that this will not happen. Most of the players love the mod system while ironically, they hate the meta asprung from it.

I really wish PGIGP had gone with this approach, while having a Solaris mode which could have been what we've got now. CW matches could have been (if they ever materialize) stock-mod, and for players who wanted to build their mechs from scratch, they'd have the arenas of Solaris.

[SiriusBeef]

seems like there is to much room for packet capture hacks. Not sure if it's HSR or what but the Damage mechanics really need some attention.

And i totally agree with this:

HRR Insanity, on 06 October 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Lack of ability to set up and coordinate matches between organized groups (no lobbies, lack of 4v4, 5v5, 6v6-11v11).

This really makes it tough for us folks that like to role-play within our units. We literally need 24 people online to run our ToEs.

Edited by SiriusBeef, 07 October 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[Ngamok]

Spider Hitbox dead zone
Lack of CW still
Lack of UI 2.0 still
Weapons still need tweaking and fixed - Known issue with Ballistics passing through enemies.