229 replies to this topic

[ReXspec]

Almond Brown, on 06 February 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

I'll tell you. TT is a Board game ffs. MWO is a quasi Sim shooter in real time. If you think you can actually compare it to the Other PC based MW games, then your delusion is much deeper than first assumed.

I will sight MW4 as the last MW game to die due to mixed tech. Took awhile but in the end, it even drove me away. I loved MW4 and all its predecessors then but mixed Tech is a poison that cannot be cured and will kill any MW game that allows it. YMMV

...you think MW4 died because of "mixed tech?" lol... you may want to check your history, buddy. FASA went out of business because they developed and released that GOD AWFUL Mech Assault game for the Xbox. MW4 and the various expansions for it were alive, well, and extremely popular up until their dying day when Mektek decided to take the reigns to do the free release--when the community (and the game) was then revived and added new content to the game.

Yes, MW4 had it's own balance issues, but to blame the "death" of MW4 on balance issues is laughable, to say the least. Much of MWO mechanics model off of previous mechwarrior games with a bit of TT. So, if they're going to "balance" the game, they better pick something that works (HAS worked), stick to it, and tweak it accordingly. Not produce a quasi-mech simulator with convoluted "balance" mechanics like "heat scaling."

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 09:40 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

LastPaladin, on 06 February 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

I don't think anyone is saying it is wrong, just that it won't be any fun. If players can pick either clan or IS mechs to play, at a whim, and one tech is simply inferior, then very few will pick that tech, because it won't be any fun. Then we'll just have clan mechs shooting clan mechs all the time. At that point, battle value doesn't solve the problem, because if everyone is piloting clan mechs, nobody is handicapped by having an unusually high battle value.

Well I picked Lyran cause I know the Canon, I know the way it is Supposed to go and I wanna see if my abilities an strategy can change the inevitable.If not, can I make the win cost more?

[LastPaladin]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

On the contrary. If you make more content readily available, you'll actually have a greater variety of 'mechs. Battle Value would be applicable in both scenarios because it is still a better matchmaking system then weight class and elo alone.

You have a greater potential variety, but not necessarily a greater actual variety, in terms of what mechs people choose to field. We already have plenty of IS chassis, like the Awesomes for example, that you hardly ever see on the battlefield in actuality, because they are clearly inferior in some ways. If the clan mechs are hands down better than the IS ones, then all IS chassis would be in the exact same position as those "rare" IS mechs.

[LastPaladin]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

Well I picked Lyran cause I know the Canon, I know the way it is Supposed to go and I wanna see if my abilities an strategy can change the inevitable.If not, can I make the win cost more?

Sure, and that's great. However, I think you'll find, if the IS mechs are implemented with as many disadvantages as they had in TT, you will probably be in the minority.

It might be different if people were forced to pick a side, and then could only pilot mechs from their chosen faction. Then, more IS loyalist fans would tough it out, I think. However, if they can keep their IS faction tag, but bring a superior clan mech into battle, a lot of them would do that after getting stomped a few times.

[Noesis]

I like where PGI/IGP are going with Clan Tech.

Given MWO's Min/Max needs then making clan tech as powerful as canon will make players gravitate to its use.

Equalising Clan and IS Tech leaves it more as a simple choice which side to affiliate with imho.

And you can make Clan Tech have its specific flavor as identified by the original design posts. But you can look at it more like the new weapon modules, where Tech is given a specific bonus in one area by comparison but then counteracted with other penalties. This changes the nature of the weapon without in theory altering the comparative effectiveness.

The Omnimech rules will help to balance out some of the fitting benefits for the use of clan tech as a result, hence the removal of the idea of Mix tech.

[ReXspec]

LastPaladin, on 06 February 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

You have a greater potential variety, but not necessarily a greater actual variety, in terms of what mechs people choose to field. We already have plenty of IS chassis, like the Awesomes for example, that you hardly ever see on the battlefield in actuality, because they are clearly inferior in some ways. If the clan mechs are hands down better than the IS ones, then all IS chassis would be in the exact same position as those "rare" IS mechs.

The that's because the Awesome's quirks are incorrect. For example, did you know the awesome is supposed to have a GREATER heat efficiency then normal because it's a "cool running" 'mech? It's reliance on PPC's and the cooling efficency for those PPC's is actually what allows it to function on battlefields for extended periods of time. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Awesome

What we're seeing with PGI's method of balance are "jack of all trade" 'mechs that are relegated to a few roles as opposed to many roles. What makes it worse, is that the 'mechs are poorly optimized for those roles. By giving players access to a wider variety of tech and content, Pilots can better adapt and better fit their 'mech into those roles.

[Almond Brown]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

...you think MW4 died because of "mixed tech?" lol... you may want to check your history, buddy. FASA went out of business because they developed and released that GOD AWFUL Mech Assault game for the Xbox. MW4 and the various expansions for it were alive, well, and extremely popular up until their dying day when Mektek decided to take the reigns to do the free release--when the community (and the game) was then revived and added new content to the game.

Yes, MW4 had it's own balance issues, but to blame the "death" of MW4 on balance issues is laughable, to say the least. Much of MWO mechanics model off of previous mechwarrior games with a bit of TT. So, if they're going to "balance" the game, they better pick something that works (HAS worked), stick to it, and tweak it accordingly. Not produce a quasi-mech simulator with convoluted "balance" mechanics like "heat scaling."

Sorry dude. When you boil any game down to 4 Mechs and 5-6 weapons of choice, death is always lurking. At the end, even finding a Match that wasn't set for NH/UA (or a Real Match) was a joke and proved that having any system that makes a Player have to work/think for his victories simply can't compete if the other choice, NH/UA is also available.

Players are like flowing water. Always taking the path of least resistance, even if it stifles the FUN.

[ReXspec]

Noesis, on 06 February 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

I like where PGI/IGP are going with Clan Tech.

Given MWO's Min/Max needs then making clan tech as powerful as canon will make players gravitate to its use.

Equalising Clan and IS Tech leaves it more as a simple choice which side to affiliate with imho.

And you can make Clan Tech have its specific flavor as identified by the original design posts. But you can look at it more like the new weapon modules, where Tech is given a specific bonus in one area by comparison but then counteracted with other penalties. This changes the nature of the weapon without in theory altering the comparative effectiveness.

The Omnimech rules will help to balance out some of the fitting benefits for the use of clan tech as a result, hence the removal of the idea of Mix tech.

To use a 'mech because it looks pretty can only be taken so far. I want to face 'mechs that live up to their reputation, tear them to pieces, take their salvage, and buy some Clan tech of my own to use against them.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 06 February 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Sorry dude. When you boil any game down to 4 Mechs and 5-6 weapons of choice, death is always lurking. At the end, even finding a Match that wasn't set for NH/UA (or a Real Match) was a joke and proved that having any system that makes a Player have to work/think for his victories simply can't compete if the other choice, NH/UA is also available.

Players are like flowing water. Always taking the path of least resistance, even if it stifles the FUN.

Which is exactly why FASA/et al had to add more and more Omnis to the game as well as Mechs.

[LastPaladin]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

The that's because the Awesome's quirks are incorrect.

It doesn't matter why the Awesomes are inferior, it only matters that they are inferior. If you similarly make IS mechs inferior, it won't matter why, people just will stop playing them.

[ReXspec]

Almond Brown, on 06 February 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Sorry dude. When you boil any game down to 4 Mechs and 5-6 weapons of choice, death is always lurking. At the end, even finding a Match that wasn't set for NH/UA (or a Real Match) was a joke and proved that having any system that makes a Player have to work/think for his victories simply can't compete if the other choice, NH/UA is also available.

Players are like flowing water. Always taking the path of least resistance, even if it stifles the FUN.

LOL I don't know what Mechwarrior game you were playing, but I saw a variety of 'mechs of different shapes, loadouts and sizes in virtually every MP game I played.

Sure, jump snipers were a problem, but pinpoint damage was mitigated by RoF. In fact, a lot of players tried (are STILL trying) to pin down what the "meta" of MW4 or TT actually are. In MWO, all I see is complaints about jump snipers with PPCs--and those statements that is the current "meta" are not completely unfounded.

Players will take the path of the least resistance, but when you have dozens of choices of which river to flow down, players will choose what fits their playing style, and what feels most comfortable to them. In this iteration of Mechwarrior, however, PGI has punished virtually every playing style by giving inefficient and convoluted nerfs/buffs.

LastPaladin, on 06 February 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

It doesn't matter why the Awesomes are inferior, it only matters that they are inferior. If you similarly make IS mechs inferior, it won't matter why, people just will stop playing them.

As I said... if you change the 'mech accurately to it's quirks, it will be on par.

You may want to read my post instead of making a premeditated response.

[Joseph Mallan]

LastPaladin, on 06 February 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

It doesn't matter why the Awesomes are inferior, it only matters that they are inferior. If you similarly make IS mechs inferior, it won't matter why, people just will stop playing them.

If the Awesome could carry like it does on TT but the fact it's Cockpit sits centered between its shoulders thus died to head shots more is a factor to consider, "Am I willing to take the risk?" Vs Our Awesome that shuts down every 3rd alpha and dies to decap easy. "Why would I take that?"

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

If the Awesome could carry like it does on TT but the fact it's Cockpit sits centered between its shoulders thus died to head shots more is a factor to consider, "Am I willing to take the risk?" Vs Our Awesome that shuts down every 3rd alpha and dies to decap easy. "Why would I take that?"

THANK YOU!

The Awesome is supposed to be a slugging, high-risk, high-reward vanguard 'mech! Not the freakin' oven that PGI has made it out to be.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 10:44 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I was thinking of taking a Awesome when I signed up to for Founders, But the all eggs in one basket kept me from that choice thankfully.

[ReXspec]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

I was thinking of taking a Awesome when I signed up to for Founders, But the all eggs in one basket kept me from that choice thankfully.

That is one HELL of a blessing in disguise.

Edited by ReXspec, 06 February 2014 - 10:49 AM.

[LastPaladin]

ReXspec, on 06 February 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

As I said... if you change the 'mech accurately to it's quirks, it will be on par.

You may want to read my post instead of making a premeditated response.

I'm not making a premeditated response. I responded directly to your statement and told you why your point was of no consequence. I just used the Awesome as an example of mechs that are in the game, but are not used, because they are inferior. There are plenty of other examples, and it doesn't matter one whit, when it comes to my point, exactly why they are inferior, only that they are inferior, and the players don't use them. Telling me how the Awesome can be fixed is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

[Nick Makiaveli]

First, I have a hard time taking a guy who calls himself "longwang" seriously.

Second, pretty sure they have already got a system in place, especially since they dropped some hints as to how it will work, and I doubt they will redo the whole thing now.

[LastPaladin]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

If the Awesome could carry like it does on TT but the fact it's Cockpit sits centered between its shoulders thus died to head shots more is a factor to consider, "Am I willing to take the risk?" Vs Our Awesome that shuts down every 3rd alpha and dies to decap easy. "Why would I take that?"

*facepalm*...

Talking about why the Awesome is bad or how it could be fixed is completely off-topic. I just was citing that as an example of what IS mechs could become if they are made completely inferior to clan mechs.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Which is exactly why FASA/et al had to add more and more Omnis to the game as well as Mechs.

And sadly even that didn't stop the inevitable "Meta". It is just in the Gamer gene I suppose. 15 is better than 14 and 16, well "Hello Dolley", see you 14 and 15...

[ReXspec]

Almond Brown, on 06 February 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

And sadly even that didn't stop the inevitable "Meta". It is just in the Gamer gene I suppose. 15 is better than 14 and 16, well "Hello Dolley", see you 14 and 15...

If you can define what the actual meta in MW4 or TT was/is, then your presumptions MAY hold water. Assuming they can be backed by a credible source (such as competitive Mechwarriors, field manuals, etc.).