1978 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Taemien, on 26 December 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Offtopic for sure.. but in reality customization caused the Whole franchise issues, starting with MW2.

It's not off-topic. It's about customization, including Clan tech.

Quote

Ok.. I want to know something. Those of you who think Clan should have better tech then they're getting. Why didn't you speak up during the balance passes in MWLL? I never saw this issue pop up like this in their forums. Where was the outrage of higher DPS IS Gauss rifles? More heat efficient regular lasers vs clan er lasers? More consistent Autocannons (jam resistant) vs ultras? The fact that a Bushwhacker (55 ton IS BattleMech) could utterly tear up a Loki (65 ton Clan OmniMech).

I think you all are complaining for the sake of complaining. There's actually nothing but hot air and hate for business driving your posts. And I think the real reason is because you all saw it work in MWLL and it was well known that it worked. You'd have been laughed out of the forums for suggesting otherwise. Now you're afraid of this coming to pass here. Unless I'm missing something, feel free to elaborate.

Not everyone plays MW:LL.

[Taemien]

Wolfways, on 26 December 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Not everyone plays MW:LL.

That's not good enough excuse, these players say they stick out the horrible that is MWO because they love the franchise. So they played MWLL, unless they are lying one way or the other. Which is sort of the point I am making. I don't think they are honestly upset by the facts. They just want to whine for the sake of it. its cool to call MWO devs names.

[Abrahms]

Have to lol - the first few replies are all from involved players that say they have no faith in this developer team.

I jumped off the mechwarrior fan bandwagon months ago after quickly realizing how out of touch these developers are.

The balance and changes every week were mathematically incorrect despite many forum posts literally spelling out how to fix it. There was no excuse for them.

I understand that it isnt easy for everyone to do this type of work, and can sometimes be tedious, but when you have money and a ton of fans willing to help, there really wasnt a reason that it should fail. Basic statistics could have been used to fix things.

Hence, there really is no reason to expect that the release of the clans will go well. No... reason... at all.

If you cant even balance basic IS weapons, clans is going to be a pay 2 win mess.

Edited by Abrahms, 26 December 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[Abrahms]

Wolfways, on 26 December 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

Completely disagree. Customization ruined the game imo.

Only reason you can even argue this is because customization was done wrong.

Its a great thing really. It makes no sense that mechs come is strictly stock configurations and that they cannot be modified. The issue is improper math, parameters, and concepts for the customization.

True, its harder to make rules while anticipating player choices (versus simply choosing stock configurations that balance with each other). But just because its harder doesnt mean that it can not be done properly.

[Valheru]

Taemien, on 26 December 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

That's not good enough excuse, these players say they stick out the horrible that is MWO because they love the franchise. So they played MWLL, unless they are lying one way or the other. Which is sort of the point I am making. I don't think they are honestly upset by the facts. They just want to whine for the sake of it. its cool to call MWO devs names.

I have never played MWLL and I don't have much interest in it either. Let them have MWLL, it's their creation, why are you trying to get MWO turned over into MWLL's image? I prefer MWO and I want MWO to succeed with the Mechwarrior and Battletech lore that I know of. (I've spent the past 15 years collecting novels and technical read outs.)

Stop trying to balance the Clans with weapons and assuming that Clans are the equals of Innersphere. There is no equal, there should not be any balance in regards to their technology.

Balance them with BV or 10 v 12. (BTW, Skirmish = Team Death Match.) Also your argument on capping issues are built on quicksand. I've been part of 10v12 where the 10s win due to tactics, piloting, and gunnery, this has nothing to do with team count. As you've said before, but to paraphrase, not everyone is a noob and not everyone is a super pilot.

I personally do not want clan mechs to be anywhere near close to resembling innersphere mechs in combat characteristics. They should really have their own flavor, which is OP in a direct 1 on 1 comparison, but not so OP when engaged in real battle against larger numbers.

Edited by Valheru, 26 December 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[Taemien]

Valheru, on 26 December 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

I have never played MWLL and I don't have much interest in it either. Let them have MWLL, it's their creation, why are you trying to get MWO turned over into MWLL's image? I prefer MWO and I want MWO to succeed with the Mechwarrior and Battletech lore that I know of. (I've spent the past 15 years collecting novels and technical read outs.)

If I wanted MWO to be like MWLL, I'd say make mechs Stock only. Thats the difference between the two other than adding Tanks and AeroSpace. They run the same engine (and have the same netcode issues ironically enough) as well as a couple of other things.

Point is, Clan weapons being balanced to IS has worked, can be done well, and players do enjoy it. Thats a hard fact many in this thread refuse to admit.

But again, I think its simply because its something to complain about.

[Lightfoot]

Your proposed system for Clan Mechs will actually make them less Omni than Inner Sphere mechs, and you can't do that.

The omni-pods represent a size factor and the omni-pod slots they go into have a second size factor from the fixed FF armor and endo critical slots. On top of that you want them to have designated hardpoint types like Inner Sphere mechs.

Just those three things represent a mech with less adaptability than the non-omni Inner Sphere mechs. However, then the proposed plan goes on to say that Armor and Engine are not modifiable.

Well, I will counter that if the hardpoints in the omni-pods are not omni points as they should be, then armor and engines should be modifiable.

There has to be some strength to the Clan design, but you have actually planned to block any meaningful changes that a player might make in Mechlab. How can that be an Omni-mech?

[Imperius]

I just want CT's on all mechs to get a buff so mechs last longer and people actually aim instead of just going for the CT all the time. It would be better gameplay to strip a mech of its weapons then kill it. Mechs feel like aluminum cans.

[Victor Morson]

Imperius, on 26 December 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

I just want CT's on all mechs to get a buff so mechs last longer and people actually aim instead of just going for the CT all the time. It would be better gameplay to strip a mech of its weapons then kill it. Mechs feel like aluminum cans.

Who goes for CT all the time except newbies?

Blast the sides off the XLs, blast the ammo outta those lightlegs..

[Strongpaw]

Clan Tech Balancing : A Proposition

I have no idea what PGI's plans are for clan tech towards inner sphere mech but i know players will want to be able to put clan tech on their inner sphere mechs so here is my proposition towards that end.

Balancing : To prevent 4 ultra ac 20 Cataphracts I propose Module Hardpoint Converters

A Module Hardpoint Converter would change an Innersphere Ballistic, Missile, Laser, AMS, Heat Sink Type Hardpoint into a Clan Ballistic, Missile, Laser, AMS, Heat Sink Type Hardpoint . (different technology converter)

Example I buy a Clan Balistic Module Converter for 2 million Cbills that takes up 1 module slot and changes 1 Inner sphere ballistic hardpoint into a clan Ballistic hardpoint.

So at best an innersphere mech will have 2-4 Clan weapons at best depending on module slots and mastery slot bonus

Also since each takes up a module slot and costs c bills players will have to choose what advantages they really want.

They also need to salvage or buy the clan weapon in question as well increasing the cost.

This would prevent runaway clan tech on innersphere mechs and Keep the lore flavor between both tech types.


My 2 c-bills on the matter at hand. Strongpaw

[Victor Morson]

Strongpaw PGi doesn't listen to 350 pages of people telling them something is a bad idea, they're not listening to your proposition. Sorry.

[Aim64C]

On the recent discussion of customization and the like:

Much of the issue, here, is that TT was played from a strategic force perspective than a first-person RPG-like perspective. While you had events like "Solaris" mixed in - the 'reality' behind much of that is similar to that of modern day racing. Solaris pilots were as much billboards for companies who threw money at their mech as they were independent pilots managing resources.

TT, also, was often played against an arbitrary 'opfor' that was expected to lose. While "player-versus-player" matches did occur - those were often few and far between. Tabletop was almost always balanced, in a sense, to favor the player's force.

From the get-go, one has to completely re-think the battletech economy as it applies to a single pilot without a major military power footing the bill for all of his/her costs.

Then we run into other problems. The current game is absolutely nothing like the contracts one would be fulfilling in tabletop gameplay. Even if we were to take the perspective of Solaris, again, many of those pilots ran at a net loss. You rarely saw top-end gear in Solaris because it was expensive as all holy **** to repair - and a lot of the pilots like to eliminate the 'rich' crowd, first. Normally, you'd never take a Locust in a team match-up, one-for-one, against another team of battlemechs. Even if you decide you need a light or two - you're going to run with heavier options that can muster similar speeds, pack more weapons, and have better armor (not to mention - MWO's heatsink mechanics completely bork the locust).

But from a total-force perspective - the locust is a fine tag-along mech to use for interdiction against light armor and infantry suppression. It's also relatively cheap to operate and repair, and moves pretty quick without costly XL engine technology. If you lose it - it's not a major loss on your part. You could field a few Locusts for the cost of a single high-end medium mech.

That aspect is lost when you try and pit players against each other, one-for-one, in a team deathmatch.

That method of gameplay severely challenges repair and rearm mechanics. If you 'drop' against an overwhelmingly superior force (in talent or equipment) - you can't gather what remains, break contact, and survive to fight another battle. You -have- to accept attrition and loss. The only way you can avoid loss of your 'mech (and the costs of repairing it) is if all 12 of the enemy lose theirs (realistically speaking - some assault and conquest games end in capture victories - but it's not exactly the most probable of outcomes).

That means repair and rearm cannot be realistically implemented into this type of game. Radical shifts in gameplay (such as persistent and dynamic battlefield environments) have to exist before a system of R&R becomes practical - where players can accomplish and fail objectives without entering into a locked room and having to kill all foes or die trying. I've talked about that concept, before.

Weapon loadouts and customization then become far less of an issue. Expensive equipment is expensive to own and operate - but comes at high repair costs with no special compensation from the contract provider (cheaper builds run higher profit margins for the same amount of received damage). Weapons being balanced around roles on the battlefield, as opposed to deathmatches against other mechs, leads to gameplay that allows players to enjoy their customized builds and still make a difference on the battlefield.

With people able to die in cheap light mechs and return to the same battlefield in more expensive mechs (or vice-versa) while still satisfying a role on their team - the entire concept of balance changes. Rather than being focused on individual mech and weapon performance - people look at whether or not they are bringing the right 'mechs from orbit. Do they have a 'mech that is geared for repelling base assaults? Do they have a good mech for escorting salvage crews? Do they have a good mech to serve as a picketing lance to interdict an incoming assault force?

While weapon balance will still be important - the entire meaning of it changes to one where the community will automatically figure out where weapons best function. The light mech running with a small battery of LRMs can harass a heavier unit, return to a base to reload and replace a few damaged armor panels, and go right back out there. The LRM5 doesn't have to compete with heavier weapon options, SRMs, etc - because the 'mech it is attached to is no longer locked into a tiny box with several mechs three times its mass.

All the while - it is letting the specialized medium and heavy builds know just where they can find a host of 'mechs to feast upon.

The problem with most of our game balance is that we are trying to balance mechs and weapons for a role that they were never intended to fill in the first place. Many of the designs that are popular, now, take advantage of the fact that the number of enemies is fixed at 12 and they are all going to stay within the same small (in battlefield terms) map.

In dynamic battlefields - ammunition-intensive designs stick pretty close to 'home' - which is where their ability to resupply is. The AC40 jager may be pretty good at busting open holes in a 'mech's armor - but it is going to need an escort to get through the web of helicopter gunships, light armor/hovercraft, and the roving scout patrol and still have any ammunition left to do anything.

But, I've beaten that horse into the ground, talking about it.

[Taemien]

Aim64C, on 26 December 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

On the recent discussion of customization and the like:

"..."

But, I've beaten that horse into the ground, talking about it.

This is a pretty good post. Pretty much sums up WHY MechWarrior is not BattleTech.

To give an example, the last 3 games of TT I've ran ended with the losing team withdrawing rather than fighting to the utter death. You don't get that option in MWO. There's no withdrawing from the battle, and the game can't really support it.

Much of what people are talking about (10v12, repair/rearm, ect.) would work if say... mechs were expendable resources. If this was a game like EVE Online where mech destruction was permament or an expensive fix (slightly cheaper than a new mech), then things would be alot different. Personally.. I'd love to see a game like that where its open world/galaxy, open economy, and you pretty much go where you want when you want. But this is MechWarrior Online, not BattleTech Online and thats a simple fact we have to deal with.

This will be and only ever be.. hit launch, drop in 12v12, win or lose and continue with some sort of thing in the background giving you bonuses based on how well you did.

Therefor the two sides have to be balanced against one another. AIM64C only touched the very surface

[Wolfways]

Taemien, on 26 December 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

If I wanted MWO to be like MWLL, I'd say make mechs Stock only. Thats the difference between the two other than adding Tanks and AeroSpace. They run the same engine (and have the same netcode issues ironically enough) as well as a couple of other things.

Point is, Clan weapons being balanced to IS has worked, can be done well, and players do enjoy it. Thats a hard fact many in this thread refuse to admit.

But again, I think its simply because its something to complain about.

I don't think anyone is saying that balancing Clan and IS equipment is impossible, but going on what PGI has done with the game so far i think some players, including myself, think that PGI don't have the ability to do it right. I don't insult PGI because it's fun...i don't even think i insult them, unless saying they are bad at their job is an insult.
And if MW:LL is so balanced why don't you suggest PGI copy that game?

[Illuzian Pryde]

Wolfways, on 27 December 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

I don't think anyone is saying that balancing Clan and IS equipment is impossible, but going on what PGI has done with the game so far i think some players, including myself, think that PGI don't have the ability to do it right. I don't insult PGI because it's fun...i don't even think i insult them, unless saying they are bad at their job is an insult.
And if MW:LL is so balanced why don't you suggest PGI copy that game?

I think you need to clearly define the scope of 'some players'. Most players I know, including myself think they've done an amazing job except where hsr not working properly(or before hsr existing) has exacerbated issues with hit detection.

[Wolfways]

illuzian, on 27 December 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I think you need to clearly define the scope of 'some players'. Most players I know, including myself think they've done an amazing job except where hsr not working properly(or before hsr existing) has exacerbated issues with hit detection.

By "some players" i mean those who post their opinions on these forums saying that they are unhappy with what PGI is doing.
I'd say that the mechs look nice and combat is okay, but unfortunately that's about all i can say about MWO that's good and i really wish it wasn't
I don't see how PGI can even begin to think about balancing Clan weapons when they haven't even balanced the IS weapons yet.

[Illuzian Pryde]

Wolfways, on 27 December 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

By "some players" i mean those who post their opinions on these forums saying that they are unhappy with what PGI is doing.
I'd say that the mechs look nice and combat is okay, but unfortunately that's about all i can say about MWO that's good and i really wish it wasn't
I don't see how PGI can even begin to think about balancing Clan weapons when they haven't even balanced the IS weapons yet.

Thanks, for a minute there I thought you meant 'most players'. =)

Edited by illuzian, 27 December 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[Gladewolf]

Without community warfare, putting the clans in game is just a pointless arms race. What we have right now is a really good Mech Warrior set piece demo with only player made competitions(which go to a lot of trouble, without private lobbies). We were promised a clan invasion, not a clan summer sales extravaganza(this invasion brought to you by GM Interstellar?). Please get community warfare in first, so there is a reason for the clans to be in play at all. At this point it looks more like Wal-Mart is invading(with low-cost nerfed clan knock-offs)

[VanillaG]

Lightfoot, on 26 December 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

Your proposed system for Clan Mechs will actually make them less Omni than Inner Sphere mechs, and you can't do that.

The omni-pods represent a size factor and the omni-pod slots they go into have a second size factor from the fixed FF armor and endo critical slots. On top of that you want them to have designated hardpoint types like Inner Sphere mechs.

Just those three things represent a mech with less adaptability than the non-omni Inner Sphere mechs. However, then the proposed plan goes on to say that Armor and Engine are not modifiable.

Well, I will counter that if the hardpoints in the omni-pods are not omni points as they should be, then armor and engines should be modifiable.

There has to be some strength to the Clan design, but you have actually planned to block any meaningful changes that a player might make in Mechlab. How can that be an Omni-mech?

From a lore prespective, the omnimechs strengths were in configuring and repairing between battles. Repairs and modifications that took IS crews days to complete could be done in hours with Omnimechs. Being able to regenerate their mechs faster than the IS allowed them to keep up the presssure with fewer mechs. As others have said in this thread, since MWO is really just a bunch of set piece battles with no concerns for logistics, you can't use lore as a reason for certain mechanics.

As it stands right now with what they are proposing, IS mechs will have the advantage of more mobility with fixed hard points and Clan mechs will have the advantage of more firepower with fixed mobility.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Taemien, on 26 December 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

That's not good enough excuse, these players say they stick out the horrible that is MWO because they love the franchise. So they played MWLL, unless they are lying one way or the other. Which is sort of the point I am making. I don't think they are honestly upset by the facts. They just want to whine for the sake of it. its cool to call MWO devs names.

I played ALL the MechWarrior titles starting with MW2 (only for a short time as a kid though). Just not the mods...you do understand the difference between a retail pc game and a modification, yes?


PS: Reading through the last couple posts...

You're right, without CW the system PGI is currently building totally makes sense. I've never thought about it, but now I'm even more worried. The balance makes sense for a setpiece-game without CW, so that there is no real backstory ("invasion") and stuff.

Is this a sign that they actually wont do it? Time will tell, but at least it's a hint towards things (not) to come.

Edited by GODzillaGSPB, 27 December 2013 - 09:31 AM.