404 replies to this topic

[Varent]

wanderer, on 08 March 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

If you could put all four lasers into the same spot, you'd pretty much terrify anyone in Mechwarrior.

People forget AC/20's in TT can one shot every 'Mech in the game. With one shot. Hit. Roll a 12. Target destroyed. It's why the Gauss is one of the dominant TT weapons- because it, too can OSK only it does it at nearly triple the distance for no heat (and the Clan ER PPC falls into the same boat). In fact, being able to aim for a specific location usually takes tons of additional equipment AND is also a tremendously difficult shot...because it breaks the 'Mech damage system.

Based on the fact you are someone that argues from the BT point of view. There has always been descriptions of people getting horrified fighting against an ac20. You simply do not see that when fighting against medium lasers. The ac20 is supposed to be terrifying and a brutal killing weapon. 4 medium lasers are not.

Discuss and do not avoid the issue. This is not about putting your damage where its supposed to be, its about truly and honestly ruining what a mech and its weapons are SUPPOSED to be for the sake of 4 medium lasers being equal to the ac20. This has been an argument put up for 'balance' so that people find the game more 'enjoyable'.

In CoD there are many diffeernt types of sub machine guns available. Many of them are utterly utterly sub par. Even when you carry two of them they spray bullets all over the place with the exception of a few of them. Most people gravitate towards rifles, heavy caliber hand guns, sniper rifles and the occasional Shotgun. It could easily be argued that the sub machine guns therefore need to be 'buffed' they dont do it and have gone through ... what.. 7 franchises now overall? As far as sequels go thats pretty damn good. Guess what, they are a successful company that has a weapon in there game that a higher elo doesnt use and people still enjoy and play around with.

People here would argue its not balanced. Thats great, its still heavily played and people enjoy it. Balance does not always equal fun or playability or draw crowds. Some things arent balanced, and there not supposed to be. There will always be imbalanced towards certain weapons. They are supposed to be un balanced and scary. If you dont like it, dont play.

No where on your birth certificate did it say this life was supposed to be fair, or balanced.

[Foxfire]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

That would require arguing with people that want 4 medium lasers to be equal to the ac20. Good luck.

It isn't about making AC20=4x ML's. It is about allowing for competitive play. Simple fact is, you can spread damage from duration based weapons, you can't vs FLD weapons. It is a simple thing to time your shots against an opponent to hit the same area if they are torso twisting, especially when they are trying to actively fight back.

It is nice to reference back to the TT game but this is a different kind of game where you don't have random rolls for to-hit and hit location.. you control when and where you fire your weapons which is precisely what makes FLD inherently better than duration/burst based damage.

This is also why it is absurd to think that you can fix the problem by adding 'both' burst fire and FLD weapons because, as you noted in your post about CoD, people will gravitate to the weapons that are simply better(in this case, the FLD variants) which makes the whole exercise a pointless waste of time and money on the part of PGI.

[R Razor]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

Based on the fact you are someone that argues from the BT point of view. There has always been descriptions of people getting horrified fighting against an ac20. You simply do not see that when fighting against medium lasers. The ac20 is supposed to be terrifying and a brutal killing weapon. 4 medium lasers are not.

Discuss and do not avoid the issue. This is not about putting your damage where its supposed to be, its about truly and honestly ruining what a mech and its weapons are SUPPOSED to be for the sake of 4 medium lasers being equal to the ac20. This has been an argument put up for 'balance' so that people find the game more 'enjoyable'.

In CoD there are many diffeernt types of sub machine guns available. Many of them are utterly utterly sub par. Even when you carry two of them they spray bullets all over the place with the exception of a few of them. Most people gravitate towards rifles, heavy caliber hand guns, sniper rifles and the occasional Shotgun. It could easily be argued that the sub machine guns therefore need to be 'buffed' they dont do it and have gone through ... what.. 7 franchises now overall? As far as sequels go thats pretty damn good. Guess what, they are a successful company that has a weapon in there game that a higher elo doesnt use and people still enjoy and play around with.

People here would argue its not balanced. Thats great, its still heavily played and people enjoy it. Balance does not always equal fun or playability or draw crowds. Some things arent balanced, and there not supposed to be. There will always be imbalanced towards certain weapons. They are supposed to be un balanced and scary. If you dont like it, dont play.

No where on your birth certificate did it say this life was supposed to be fair, or balanced.

Your argument would carry some weight were this game more restrictive on what can and can't carry certain classes of weapon and how many such Battlemechs could be found in a given scenario........thanks to the e-peen whiners and incompetence on many levels however, you can cram any weapon you want into any chassis you want and bring as many of them as you want which destroys any hope of balanced play in this game...........you didn't see (or read in canon if you prefer) battles wherein there were lances of dual gauss or dual AC-20 Jagermechs running around focus firing EVERY TARGET they hit into the ground in seconds.

[Khobai]

Quote

Based on the fact you are someone that argues from the BT point of view. There has always been descriptions of people getting horrified fighting against an ac20. You simply do not see that when fighting against medium lasers. The ac20 is supposed to be terrifying and a brutal killing weapon. 4 medium lasers are not.

Except 4 MLs arnt equal to 1 AC/20 in tabletop. A ML is 1 ton. An AC/20 is 14 tons plus at least another 1-2 tons for ammo. If you put 14 MLs on a mech, that's equal to an AC/20 for tonnage, and I assure you the 14 MLs are far scarier. And in tabletop you can quite easily handle the heat from 14MLs.

Yes the AC/20 should be a terrifying weapon. But saying that medium lasers werent also capable of being terrifying demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge about battletech. The only weapon in battletech thats better than the medium laser is the gauss rifle.

One of the major reasons medium lasers dont have parity with the AC/20 in MWO is because the hardpoint system and prohibitive heat system prevent you from boating lasers to the point where theyre better than the AC/20. So the AC/20 ends up being a significantly better weapon than it was in tabletop. And when you make lasers spread damage around on top of that, it just makes them outright worse.

The point being, medium lasers were one of the top 2 weapons in battletech, and theyre relegated to mid-tier status in MWO. Weapon balance in MWO has shifted heavily to favor ballistics and lasers are only a fraction as good as they should be.

Edited by Khobai, 08 March 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Varent]

Foxfire, on 08 March 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

It isn't about making AC20=4x ML's. It is about allowing for competitive play. Simple fact is, you can spread damage from duration based weapons, you can't vs FLD weapons. It is a simple thing to time your shots against an opponent to hit the same area if they are torso twisting, especially when they are trying to actively fight back.

It is nice to reference back to the TT game but this is a different kind of game where you don't have random rolls for to-hit and hit location.. you control when and where you fire your weapons which is precisely what makes FLD inherently better than duration/burst based damage.

This is also why it is absurd to think that you can fix the problem by adding 'both' burst fire and FLD weapons because, as you noted in your post about CoD, people will gravitate to the weapons that are simply better(in this case, the FLD variants) which makes the whole exercise a pointless waste of time and money on the part of PGI.

R Razor, on 08 March 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

Your argument would carry some weight were this game more restrictive on what can and can't carry certain classes of weapon and how many such Battlemechs could be found in a given scenario........thanks to the e-peen whiners and incompetence on many levels however, you can cram any weapon you want into any chassis you want and bring as many of them as you want which destroys any hope of balanced play in this game...........you didn't see (or read in canon if you prefer) battles wherein there were lances of dual gauss or dual AC-20 Jagermechs running around focus firing EVERY TARGET they hit into the ground in seconds.

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

Except 4 MLs arnt equal to 1 AC/20 in tabletop. A ML is 1 ton. An AC/20 is 14 tons plus at least another 1-2 tons for ammo.

If you put 14 MLs on a mech, that's equal to an AC/20 for tonnage, and I assure you the 14 MLs are far scarier. And in tabletop you can quite easily handle the heat from 14MLs.

One of the major reasons lasers dont have parity with the AC/20 in MWO is because the hardpoint system and prohibitive heat system prevent you from boating lasers to the point where theyre better than the AC/20. So the AC/20 ends up being a significantly better weapon than it was in tabletop. And when you make lasers spread damage around on top of that, it just makes them outright worse.

Your arguments are based off failed logic.

1) you want the game to be equal with weapons. weapons however are not meant to be equal. Weapons are MEANT to be unequal. weapons that are larger, and heavier and stronger are located (normally) on larger mechs who are supposed to be scary. No one has addressed at all the fact that the ac20 is supposed to be scary. They want to ignore this fact because they want to balance it. They want to balance it based off BT. But they ignore the fact that the ac20 is supposed to be scary in the BT universe. I recall a specific book where light mechs stood in awe of two assaults duking it out simply because they knew whoever one the combat would basically decide the overall battle because of the fact that they simply would not be able to handle an assault mech by themselves due to the weapons they carried. This in essence is what weight restrictions do. They give value to the weapons based off of weight and limit how many of them can be on the field of combat. That being said many successful games out there with 1. a larger following, 2. larger monetary value, and 3. a more active community, do not balance all of there weapons but instead leave weapons in the game for options and 'feel' value. You dont see people hoping all over there forums complaining about them. They simply enjoy the game or dont play. What you have on the MWO forums is people whining and complaining because 'Its not what I feel BT should be'. I mean really.... all I can think is , 'aww... muffin' and pinching the cheek of a child.

2) You want the game to be equal because currently there are no roles for ligher chasis. The BT universe was created around the concept of there being a role warfare for a light mech. In the universe itself this works because you have a true world to explore. I need to use the concept of eve to fully explain this. Eve is a truly massive universe. Due to the massiveness of it a 'scout' is needed to actually move way way ahead of a force and bring back useful information so you can know of the enemies forces. In mwo you simply dont have the map sizes that make having a scout mech truly valuable, nor do you have the amount of time in a game that would be needed for this. In a real life situation and scenario you would need to spend hours over a massive map with your scout mechs moving foreward miles ahead to bring information back to you that you could then use to decide how to engage an opponent. In mwo the maps are so small that the scout mechs main roll is a quick blurp of information and then once combat starts they are relagated to a combat roll. There are no true scout rolls in mwo. And there cant be with the system they are using. Scouts were balanced against other mechs and weapons in BT because there was BV and you could bring 2-3 light mechs for the value of a heavy mech at times. You cant however do this in MWO and it would be unbalanced either way because there is no way to properly account for the value of a pilot within a mech, some are amzing, some are crap and it makes the weapons ona mech either ten times better or worse based off of that. Right now we are moving away from BT honestly because we are trying to balance something that is not meant to be balanced and honestly ruining the fun and exciting and interesting factors of the game for the sake of achieving a balance scale that doesnt even make sense in a BT world.

3) Your basing your ideas off TT, TT in and of itself was never balanced in the first place, it was errated multiple times because of this and many things were added to the game overall to fill int he gaps of the balance issues that always occured. This being said we dont have access to all of those items yet to fill in those gaps, We took an already broken system and without using the proper parts to fix it we are trying to tinker and 'fix and balance' it when really we probly should have just been focusing on making a fun game. There are two major competing views and concepts here people need to accept. There is TT and there is the BT universe and after both of those things there is the MW universe. In TT you will be matched evenly based off how many mechs you have with X BV. However in the BT universe two mechs are not equal, nor are two weapons equal. Certain weapons are simply stronger and better then others. Clan technology is simply stronger and better then IS. This is the reason why they are having to change so many things about the clan weapons and tech, it was never balanced in the first place and is at such a disparity that it would mean an utter steam role of the IS. Yet people feel that two mechs should be equal and thus we have created this broken concept of balance that we are trying to work towards wich is basically ****** everything the actual universe and lore of BT stands for. Now on top of that you have the Mechwarrior universe. Wich is what I am reffering to as the onling gaming universe since that has been what every title has been under. This universe requires an equal amount of shooters on either side and basically arena style game play to a degree to be fully effective. You cant fully balance mechs along those concepts. Every MW title so far has always been an arms race. The balancing factor to a degree is weight restrictions since it allows you to not have so many big guns on either side. If you want an actual BT feel in a MW title, then weapons being unbalanced is acceptable. It actually gives the game taste and feel.

4) The sad truth on all sides of the argument is you have an older generation of gamers that want this game to be TT, you have a younger generation of gamers that want it to be MW and you have a middle aged generation of gamers that want it to be BT. All three of those options are impossible to put fully into a game. To put in a long random shot game of attrition like you have in TT you will destroy the entire MW crowd and basically leave the game bland for those that want BT. For the game to feel epic and give the feel of true mechs like we read about you will have devastating weapons that make the TT people cry because its not 'balanced' and make the MW gamers unhappy because they want a shooter that lets them have there E-Peen. And to make the game a simple balanced shooter for the MW crowd means you **** the BT universe and go away from everything that TT really stood for since it has nothing to do with a balanced shooter.

All these things are not statements, they are facts and cold hard truths. What is the answer? Honestly I dont know. What would be my answer is for PGI to take a stand and state what crowd they will be aiming for. The last MW title came out 12 years ago.... time and the gaming industry has changed so much now its ridiculous. All these things said I dont feel that this game is meant to support all those gaming types... they are too differing of crowds based on what they want and because of this the game will always be unsufficient to fullfill the wants of everyone that will play it. If at some point they do decide they will please one specific group then you will lose the other two since there wont be a reason for them to play. In a perfect world gamers might come together and find an acceptable middle ground where everyone can be happy. In a real life situation human beings have been killing each other from the moment we could lift up and bash someones head in with a rock based off things alot less important then the direction of a videogame.

[Khobai]

Actually I want them to completely abandon any connection to TT and balance every weapon on its own merits. Give every weapon a niche and purpose in the game. And give us armor values that dont come from TT and screw everything up. Pulling TT stats into MWO was the biggest mistake PGI made.

Quote

you want the game to be equal with weapons

Of course I do. Balance is one of the fundamental design principles of ANY good game. When you give players different choices those choices have to be equal: with weighted pros and cons.

Quote

Your basing your ideas off TT, TT in and of itself was never balanced in the first place, it was errated multiple times

TT wasnt balanced at all. Which is all the more reason PGI should never have used tabletop values for anything. Ive been playing TT for 20+ years, I love it, but you cant just take TT values and plug them into a live action game and expect them to work.

Edited by Khobai, 08 March 2014 - 10:44 AM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

Actually I want them to completely abandon any connection to TT and balance every weapon on its own merits. Give every weapon a niche and purpose in the game. And give us armor values that dont come from TT and screw everything up.

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

4) The sad truth on all sides of the argument is you have an older generation of gamers that want this game to be TT, you have a younger generation of gamers that want it to be MW and you have a middle aged generation of gamers that want it to be BT. All three of those options are impossible to put fully into a game. To put in a long random shot game of attrition like you have in TT you will destroy the entire MW crowd and basically leave the game bland for those that want BT. For the game to feel epic and give the feel of true mechs like we read about you will have devastating weapons that make the TT people cry because its not 'balanced' and make the MW gamers unhappy because they want a shooter that lets them have there E-Peen. And to make the game a simple balanced shooter for the MW crowd means you **** the BT universe and go away from everything that TT really stood for since it has nothing to do with a balanced shooter.

An example in progress.

[Foxfire]

I'd much rather have a game that is balanced and has much better longevity than one that kowtows to letting people feel 'epic' with simplistic weapon designs. Instant gratification isn't a good formula for longterm sustainability in a game of this style.

My vote is always and will always be to make a game more skill based.

*edits to add*

Oh, and by balance, I am not talking that 'x weapon = y weapon' but that the mechanics of a weapon doesn't make it inherently superior to everything around it.

Edited by Foxfire, 08 March 2014 - 10:58 AM.

[R Razor]

No, I don't want the game to be "fair or balanced" with weapons..........I want the MECH types to be balanced.........if you re-read what I typed mayhap you'll comprehend that fact.

The damage inflicted by the weapons is fine, it's the fact that there are absolutely ZERO restrictions on what can CARRY said weapons nor are there restrictions on the QUANTITY of said weapons that can be found on the battlefield.

If PGI were somewhat beyond the level of "CLUELESS" when it came to gameplay balance this wouldn't be an issue.......instead you have the min-max crowd building nothing but the absolute BEST and those are almost all you see on the field.

I have some limited hope that the new 3-3-3-3 balance attempt that is incoming will help mitigate some of the failed balance issue but it won't fix it all that's for sure.

Plenty of other ways it could be done......recoil, eliminate pin point damage....hard point size restrictions...damage over time....but PGI won't do any of these because their target audience (the basement dwellers I call them) would cry bloody murder.

[Varent]

R Razor, on 08 March 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

No, I don't want the game to be "fair or balanced" with weapons..........I want the MECH types to be balanced.........if you re-read what I typed mayhap you'll comprehend that fact.

The damage inflicted by the weapons is fine, it's the fact that there are absolutely ZERO restrictions on what can CARRY said weapons nor are there restrictions on the QUANTITY of said weapons that can be found on the battlefield.

If PGI were somewhat beyond the level of "CLUELESS" when it came to gameplay balance this wouldn't be an issue.......instead you have the min-max crowd building nothing but the absolute BEST and those are almost all you see on the field.

I have some limited hope that the new 3-3-3-3 balance attempt that is incoming will help mitigate some of the failed balance issue but it won't fix it all that's for sure.

Plenty of other ways it could be done......recoil, eliminate pin point damage....hard point size restrictions...damage over time....but PGI won't do any of these because their target audience (the basement dwellers I call them) would cry bloody murder.

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

3) Your basing your ideas off TT, TT in and of itself was never balanced in the first place, it was errated multiple times because of this and many things were added to the game overall to fill int he gaps of the balance issues that always occured. This being said we dont have access to all of those items yet to fill in those gaps, We took an already broken system and without using the proper parts to fix it we are trying to tinker and 'fix and balance' it when really we probly should have just been focusing on making a fun game. There are two major competing views and concepts here people need to accept. There is TT and there is the BT universe and after both of those things there is the MW universe. In TT you will be matched evenly based off how many mechs you have with X BV. However in the BT universe two mechs are not equal, nor are two weapons equal. Certain weapons are simply stronger and better then others. Clan technology is simply stronger and better then IS. This is the reason why they are having to change so many things about the clan weapons and tech, it was never balanced in the first place and is at such a disparity that it would mean an utter steam role of the IS. Yet people feel that two mechs should be equal and thus we have created this broken concept of balance that we are trying to work towards wich is basically ****** everything the actual universe and lore of BT stands for. Now on top of that you have the Mechwarrior universe. Wich is what I am reffering to as the onling gaming universe since that has been what every title has been under. This universe requires an equal amount of shooters on either side and basically arena style game play to a degree to be fully effective. You cant fully balance mechs along those concepts. Every MW title so far has always been an arms race. The balancing factor to a degree is weight restrictions since it allows you to not have so many big guns on either side. If you want an actual BT feel in a MW title, then weapons being unbalanced is acceptable. It actually gives the game taste and feel.

4) The sad truth on all sides of the argument is you have an older generation of gamers that want this game to be TT, you have a younger generation of gamers that want it to be MW and you have a middle aged generation of gamers that want it to be BT. All three of those options are impossible to put fully into a game. To put in a long random shot game of attrition like you have in TT you will destroy the entire MW crowd and basically leave the game bland for those that want BT. For the game to feel epic and give the feel of true mechs like we read about you will have devastating weapons that make the TT people cry because its not 'balanced' and make the MW gamers unhappy because they want a shooter that lets them have there E-Peen. And to make the game a simple balanced shooter for the MW crowd means you **** the BT universe and go away from everything that TT really stood for since it has nothing to do with a balanced shooter.

Actually you didnt read my post. I read yours quite fully and responded appropriatly.

Foxfire, on 08 March 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

I'd much rather have a game that is balanced and has much better longevity than one that kowtows to letting people feel 'epic' with simplistic weapon designs. Instant gratification isn't a good formula for longterm sustainability in a game of this style.

My vote is always and will always be to make a game more skill based.

*edits to add*

Oh, and by balance, I am not talking that 'x weapon = y weapon' but that the mechanics of a weapon doesn't make it inherently superior to everything around it.

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

1) you want the game to be equal with weapons. weapons however are not meant to be equal. Weapons are MEANT to be unequal. weapons that are larger, and heavier and stronger are located (normally) on larger mechs who are supposed to be scary. No one has addressed at all the fact that the ac20 is supposed to be scary. They want to ignore this fact because they want to balance it. They want to balance it based off BT. But they ignore the fact that the ac20 is supposed to be scary in the BT universe. I recall a specific book where light mechs stood in awe of two assaults duking it out simply because they knew whoever one the combat would basically decide the overall battle because of the fact that they simply would not be able to handle an assault mech by themselves due to the weapons they carried. This in essence is what weight restrictions do. They give value to the weapons based off of weight and limit how many of them can be on the field of combat. That being said many successful games out there with 1. a larger following, 2. larger monetary value, and 3. a more active community, do not balance all of there weapons but instead leave weapons in the game for options and 'feel' value. You dont see people hoping all over there forums complaining about them. They simply enjoy the game or dont play. What you have on the MWO forums is people whining and complaining because 'Its not what I feel BT should be'. I mean really.... all I can think is , 'aww... muffin' and pinching the cheek of a child.


4) The sad truth on all sides of the argument is you have an older generation of gamers that want this game to be TT, you have a younger generation of gamers that want it to be MW and you have a middle aged generation of gamers that want it to be BT. All three of those options are impossible to put fully into a game. To put in a long random shot game of attrition like you have in TT you will destroy the entire MW crowd and basically leave the game bland for those that want BT. For the game to feel epic and give the feel of true mechs like we read about you will have devastating weapons that make the TT people cry because its not 'balanced' and make the MW gamers unhappy because they want a shooter that lets them have there E-Peen. And to make the game a simple balanced shooter for the MW crowd means you **** the BT universe and go away from everything that TT really stood for since it has nothing to do with a balanced shooter.

you will be battling against two other distinctive parties.

Edited by Varent, 08 March 2014 - 01:04 PM.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

yup, but people dont want it to do that because since we dont have role warface the light mech has to be equal to the assault. wich is bullshit and honestly once we have CW will basically out balance EVERY ENERGY MECH AVAILABLE. But I honestly stopped caring. I am actually at this point sorta just hoping this will be implimented and then CW will hit and people will realize how ridiculous it is and then want it changed back. Excuse my biterness but after working to try and attempt the middle ground over and over im simply tired of the other side of it whining when there whining has no true basis on a weapon system. The ac20 is supposed to be scary. 4 medium lasers is not. They want to compare the two items and scream unbalance because of heat size what not etc.

When you can describe for me in a book a mechwarrior being terrified of 4 medium lasers as upposed to the ac20 then id be glad to come to the table, those that want to break Sarna and BT so much.

#GettingAbitFedUp

Sidenote, to make it 'fair' im going to put in a FLD version of the large and medium laser. It will be balanced with CD and HEAT.

And you are slipping back down the delusion again.

We currently have an AC that does the same relative damage per second as another one that weighs twice as much and does that damage to almost twice the distance.

I'm extremely fed up with your arguments, and I have conceded far more than you have to try to work towards a solution. I thought you were finally starting to compromise towards a solution, but then you stick your head back down the rabbit hole. I have agreed to support a system that retains the FLD versions as long as there are options, but where have you ever agreed to remove FLD?

Foxfire, on 08 March 2014 - 09:16 AM, said:

This is also why it is absurd to think that you can fix the problem by adding 'both' burst fire and FLD weapons because, as you noted in your post about CoD, people will gravitate to the weapons that are simply better(in this case, the FLD variants) which makes the whole exercise a pointless waste of time and money on the part of PGI.

The goal is to give alternate versions that will allow us to see what is possible and balance them. If done right, there should be no problem with FLD, since it will have downsides that we currently can't implement because of the limited range of weapons.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 08 March 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

And you are slipping back down the delusion again.

We currently have an AC that does the same relative damage per second as another one that weighs twice as much and does that damage to almost twice the distance.

I'm extremely fed up with your arguments, and I have conceded far more than you have to try to work towards a solution. I thought you were finally starting to compromise towards a solution, but then you stick your head back down the rabbit hole. I have agreed to support a system that retains the FLD versions as long as there are options, but where have you ever agreed to remove FLD?


The goal is to give alternate versions that will allow us to see what is possible and balance them. If done right, there should be no problem with FLD, since it will have downsides that we currently can't implement because of the limited range of weapons.

TBH I got done with a long talk with Joe over messages back and forth and I realized a few really major facts that I listed above. I have never been slipping, Ive offered solutions that help the lower end while still keeping the feel for the higher end. Wich is a solution that works for me. But to be honest I realized that that doesnt matter since there will still be two other groups it will never work for.

This isnt about compromise anymore. Nor is it about balance. This is about the solid basic facts that there are several factors within the COMMUNITY itself that will never allow for a balanced game simply because the idea of balance and what is a good game is different for three distinct groups of people. Frankly Im with Joeseph on this end of things. I would say im on the BT side. Its not about being balanced as a shooter, its not about it being TT, for me its about immersion and the weapons feeling right. Honestly I think I hit the nail on the head with this post right here. I dont feel as a community we can move foreward really because of it unless there is major concessions across the board... or perhaps different types of gaming systems that seperate the community, or pgi itself steps in and states wich group they will be working on appealing to. The problem is once they do that they lose out on two other major portions of the crowd.

You say im in a delusion? I say you havent actually woken up yet and realized this is the problem with the community at large. Oh and in case you didnt read it...

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

Your arguments are based off failed logic.

1) you want the game to be equal with weapons. weapons however are not meant to be equal. Weapons are MEANT to be unequal. weapons that are larger, and heavier and stronger are located (normally) on larger mechs who are supposed to be scary. No one has addressed at all the fact that the ac20 is supposed to be scary. They want to ignore this fact because they want to balance it. They want to balance it based off BT. But they ignore the fact that the ac20 is supposed to be scary in the BT universe. I recall a specific book where light mechs stood in awe of two assaults duking it out simply because they knew whoever one the combat would basically decide the overall battle because of the fact that they simply would not be able to handle an assault mech by themselves due to the weapons they carried. This in essence is what weight restrictions do. They give value to the weapons based off of weight and limit how many of them can be on the field of combat. That being said many successful games out there with 1. a larger following, 2. larger monetary value, and 3. a more active community, do not balance all of there weapons but instead leave weapons in the game for options and 'feel' value. You dont see people hoping all over there forums complaining about them. They simply enjoy the game or dont play. What you have on the MWO forums is people whining and complaining because 'Its not what I feel BT should be'. I mean really.... all I can think is , 'aww... muffin' and pinching the cheek of a child.

2) You want the game to be equal because currently there are no roles for ligher chasis. The BT universe was created around the concept of there being a role warfare for a light mech. In the universe itself this works because you have a true world to explore. I need to use the concept of eve to fully explain this. Eve is a truly massive universe. Due to the massiveness of it a 'scout' is needed to actually move way way ahead of a force and bring back useful information so you can know of the enemies forces. In mwo you simply dont have the map sizes that make having a scout mech truly valuable, nor do you have the amount of time in a game that would be needed for this. In a real life situation and scenario you would need to spend hours over a massive map with your scout mechs moving foreward miles ahead to bring information back to you that you could then use to decide how to engage an opponent. In mwo the maps are so small that the scout mechs main roll is a quick blurp of information and then once combat starts they are relagated to a combat roll. There are no true scout rolls in mwo. And there cant be with the system they are using. Scouts were balanced against other mechs and weapons in BT because there was BV and you could bring 2-3 light mechs for the value of a heavy mech at times. You cant however do this in MWO and it would be unbalanced either way because there is no way to properly account for the value of a pilot within a mech, some are amzing, some are crap and it makes the weapons ona mech either ten times better or worse based off of that. Right now we are moving away from BT honestly because we are trying to balance something that is not meant to be balanced and honestly ruining the fun and exciting and interesting factors of the game for the sake of achieving a balance scale that doesnt even make sense in a BT world.

3) Your basing your ideas off TT, TT in and of itself was never balanced in the first place, it was errated multiple times because of this and many things were added to the game overall to fill int he gaps of the balance issues that always occured. This being said we dont have access to all of those items yet to fill in those gaps, We took an already broken system and without using the proper parts to fix it we are trying to tinker and 'fix and balance' it when really we probly should have just been focusing on making a fun game. There are two major competing views and concepts here people need to accept. There is TT and there is the BT universe and after both of those things there is the MW universe. In TT you will be matched evenly based off how many mechs you have with X BV. However in the BT universe two mechs are not equal, nor are two weapons equal. Certain weapons are simply stronger and better then others. Clan technology is simply stronger and better then IS. This is the reason why they are having to change so many things about the clan weapons and tech, it was never balanced in the first place and is at such a disparity that it would mean an utter steam role of the IS. Yet people feel that two mechs should be equal and thus we have created this broken concept of balance that we are trying to work towards wich is basically ****** everything the actual universe and lore of BT stands for. Now on top of that you have the Mechwarrior universe. Wich is what I am reffering to as the onling gaming universe since that has been what every title has been under. This universe requires an equal amount of shooters on either side and basically arena style game play to a degree to be fully effective. You cant fully balance mechs along those concepts. Every MW title so far has always been an arms race. The balancing factor to a degree is weight restrictions since it allows you to not have so many big guns on either side. If you want an actual BT feel in a MW title, then weapons being unbalanced is acceptable. It actually gives the game taste and feel.

4) The sad truth on all sides of the argument is you have an older generation of gamers that want this game to be TT, you have a younger generation of gamers that want it to be MW and you have a middle aged generation of gamers that want it to be BT. All three of those options are impossible to put fully into a game. To put in a long random shot game of attrition like you have in TT you will destroy the entire MW crowd and basically leave the game bland for those that want BT. For the game to feel epic and give the feel of true mechs like we read about you will have devastating weapons that make the TT people cry because its not 'balanced' and make the MW gamers unhappy because they want a shooter that lets them have there E-Peen. And to make the game a simple balanced shooter for the MW crowd means you **** the BT universe and go away from everything that TT really stood for since it has nothing to do with a balanced shooter.

All these things are not statements, they are facts and cold hard truths. What is the answer? Honestly I dont know. What would be my answer is for PGI to take a stand and state what crowd they will be aiming for. The last MW title came out 12 years ago.... time and the gaming industry has changed so much now its ridiculous. All these things said I dont feel that this game is meant to support all those gaming types... they are too differing of crowds based on what they want and because of this the game will always be unsufficient to fullfill the wants of everyone that will play it. If at some point they do decide they will please one specific group then you will lose the other two since there wont be a reason for them to play. In a perfect world gamers might come together and find an acceptable middle ground where everyone can be happy. In a real life situation human beings have been killing each other from the moment we could lift up and bash someones head in with a rock based off things alot less important then the direction of a videogame.

[Foxfire]

Cimarb, on 08 March 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

The goal is to give alternate versions that will allow us to see what is possible and balance them. If done right, there should be no problem with FLD, since it will have downsides that we currently can't implement because of the limited range of weapons.

That would be great... but honestly, has PGI done anything thus far to give you confidence in properly executing such a balancing act? I mean, they balance boating via an arbitrary system in 'ghost heat' so what have they done so far to show that they can handle the delicate balancing act that would have to occur with a split mechanic system?

I'd love if they could do so but I don't have the confidence that they will be able to.

[no one]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

Except 4 MLs arnt equal to 1 AC/20 in tabletop. A ML is 1 ton. An AC/20 is 14 tons plus at least another 1-2 tons for ammo. If you put 14 MLs on a mech, that's equal to an AC/20 for tonnage, and I assure you the 14 MLs are far scarier. And in tabletop you can quite easily handle the heat from 14MLs.

Yes the AC/20 should be a terrifying weapon. But saying that medium lasers werent also capable of being terrifying demonstrates a fundamental lack of knowledge about battletech. The only weapon in battletech thats better than the medium laser is the gauss rifle.

One of the major reasons medium lasers dont have parity with the AC/20 in MWO is because the hardpoint system and prohibitive heat system prevent you from boating lasers to the point where theyre better than the AC/20. So the AC/20 ends up being a significantly better weapon than it was in tabletop. And when you make lasers spread damage around on top of that, it just makes them outright worse.

The point being, medium lasers were one of the top 2 weapons in battletech, and theyre relegated to mid-tier status in MWO. Weapon balance in MWO has shifted heavily to favor ballistics and lasers are only a fraction as good as they should be.

I'm not saying MWO hasn't come down a bit hard on medium lasers, (mostly because the heat system is poorly implemented) but that is a really bad argument. For one thing, multiple laser weapons spread damage around in the TT. The ac/20 did not. That was enough to make the ac/20 a monster despite it's tonnage, because it had a real chance of biting to the bone even against heavy 'Mechs. Medium lasers rolled to hit different sections in TT. In MWO they spread damage across sections (provided you have a moving target). Yes, TT is hardly perfectly balanced, ml were powerhouse weapons, but that doesn't mean TT had no balance or that there's nothing we can point to. 14 ml would be 42 heat, (ouch) and sure you had the potential to do 70 damage, but even if they all hit you'd average only ~10 damage to each section. That's still less damage focus than the ac/20, and gives you next to no chance of removing the enemy's head (which was one of the main reason the Gauss was so feared).

Cimarb, on 08 March 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

We currently have an AC that does the same relative damage per second as another one that weighs twice as much and does that damage to almost twice the distance.

The ac/2 spreads damage a lot more, does 3.85dps, runs hotter than the ac/20 per damage output (5 dps). I'm not saying it shouldn't have it's rate of fire curbed a bit, but it's not actually a competitor to the ac/20. It's more like an on-demand long range staccato laser or a long ranged srm stream. The lack of a convergence delay mechanic becomes a bit of an issue when you start stacking multiples of any weapon.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

You say im in a delusion? I say you havent actually woken up yet and realized this is the problem with the community at large. Oh and in case you didnt read it...

Your solution for FLD was to "fix" jump jets. As you can now see with the recent jump jet fixes, you were delusional.

You also say that the "role" of each of the existing ACs is the most important thing, as somehow adding options will remove a playstyle. That is also delusional.

I am open to manufacturer variants while retaining FLD versions as a means to see how they can be balanced. I like the ideas you have put forth recently in regards to this, but you for some reason refuse to put damage numbers with them. I just don't see why that is the case.

I realize there is a problem with the community, but I don't think in black and white and believe that you can find a middle ground that is acceptable for all parties.

Also, quoting yourself in almost every post you have made this weekend isn't going to get me to read something if I haven't already. Wall of text is still wall of text.

Foxfire, on 08 March 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

That would be great... but honestly, has PGI done anything thus far to give you confidence in properly executing such a balancing act? I mean, they balance boating via an arbitrary system in 'ghost heat' so what have they done so far to show that they can handle the delicate balancing act that would have to occur with a split mechanic system?

I'd love if they could do so but I don't have the confidence that they will be able to.

They have done quite a bit recently to give me confidence in general, though I wouldn't say for a minute that I am confident they will even try to fix autocannons. I really think the weapon modules are going to be method they use to give manufacturer variants, and that is extremely sad, as the modules suck.

[Foxfire]

They have definitely increased their efforts once they had their roadblock resolved... so I can hope but right now I am not going to hold my breath on them being able to properly execute such a system.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 08 March 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

Your solution for FLD was to "fix" jump jets. As you can now see with the recent jump jet fixes, you were delusional.

You also say that the "role" of each of the existing ACs is the most important thing, as somehow adding options will remove a playstyle. That is also delusional.

I am open to manufacturer variants while retaining FLD versions as a means to see how they can be balanced. I like the ideas you have put forth recently in regards to this, but you for some reason refuse to put damage numbers with them. I just don't see why that is the case.

I realize there is a problem with the community, but I don't think in black and white and believe that you can find a middle ground that is acceptable for all parties.

Also, quoting yourself in almost every post you have made this weekend isn't going to get me to read something if I haven't already. Wall of text is still wall of text.

Actually had time to test it. With the thrust amount that your getting they pretty much had nerfed both the victor and highlander pretty damn hard. The highlander completely for Jump Sniping purposes. The cata wasnt hit that hard but honestly im pretty ok with that so far in terms of 'balance' since its not super dominant as a jump sniper since its hit box is harder to roll damage with. Even it did get a little sluggish though.

I feel your delusional to think it didnt help 'immensly', however we alrady have stated we disagree greatly on both sides of things. I however am not so prideful as to take away from the fact that there are multiple people and players in this game who all want something different and all of them need to be addressed. I dont feel just balancing one way is the answer since it will break things and destroy play styles for two many other players. I still feel that making different 'models' of weapons is a good thing as long as it still allows for skilled players to keep the status quo.

However with saying this im stating my opinion, not a fact, just as you are stating your opinion not a fact. I believe my post summed up a larger issue in regards to the community as a whole being utterly fractured. I think that needs to be discussed before moving forewards in general. Joe helped me realize that last night.

[Khobai]

Quote

For one thing, multiple laser weapons spread damage around in the TT. The ac/20 did not.

Im well aware of that. But if you have 14 medium lasers, odds are at least 4 of them (if not more) will hit in the same location, which is the same effect as an AC/20. Also its also 70 damage instead of 20 damage.

Varent will have you believe that the AC/20 should be some FLD superweapon. But the reality of battletech is that massed medium lasers were not only better than the AC/20, but WAY better. Im not saying MWO should be anything like TT. Im simply shooting down the argument that the AC/20 was a good weapon in battletech, because it wasnt. It was actually a really bad weapon compared to massed medium lasers.

As far as MWO, I think its pretty clear that pinpoint damage needs to get hit with the nerf stick. I know im not the only one whos sick of poptarts jumping up and doing 30-40 damage at once. We tried nerfing jumpjets and its accomplished nothing. So its time to try a damage spreading mechanic instead.

Quote

Actually had time to test it. With the thrust amount that your getting they pretty much had nerfed both the victor and highlander pretty damn hard.

The highlander maybe. The victor wasnt even nerfed by it though. And if the jumpjet nerf just causes poptarters to use victors instead of highlanders thats not an acceptable fix.

But honestly poptarting was never the real problem anyway. Its the 30-40 pinpoint damage alpha strikes that are the problem. No one cares if a highlander pops up and shoots off a bunch of weapons like lasers that spread damage all around. Its only a problem with PPCs and autocannons.

So why the hell are we even nerfing jumpjets? We should be nerfing PPCs/ACs.

Edited by Khobai, 08 March 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

Im well aware of that. But if you have 14 medium lasers, odds are at least 4 of them (if not more) will hit in the same location, which is the same effect as an AC/20.

The stark reality of battletech is that massed medium lasers were not only better than the ac/20, but WAY better.

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

3) Your basing your ideas off TT, TT in and of itself was never balanced in the first place, it was errated multiple times because of this and many things were added to the game overall to fill int he gaps of the balance issues that always occured. This being said we dont have access to all of those items yet to fill in those gaps, We took an already broken system and without using the proper parts to fix it we are trying to tinker and 'fix and balance' it when really we probly should have just been focusing on making a fun game. There are two major competing views and concepts here people need to accept. There is TT and there is the BT universe and after both of those things there is the MW universe. In TT you will be matched evenly based off how many mechs you have with X BV. However in the BT universe two mechs are not equal, nor are two weapons equal. Certain weapons are simply stronger and better then others. Clan technology is simply stronger and better then IS. This is the reason why they are having to change so many things about the clan weapons and tech, it was never balanced in the first place and is at such a disparity that it would mean an utter steam role of the IS. Yet people feel that two mechs should be equal and thus we have created this broken concept of balance that we are trying to work towards wich is basically ****** everything the actual universe and lore of BT stands for. Now on top of that you have the Mechwarrior universe. Wich is what I am reffering to as the onling gaming universe since that has been what every title has been under. This universe requires an equal amount of shooters on either side and basically arena style game play to a degree to be fully effective. You cant fully balance mechs along those concepts. Every MW title so far has always been an arms race. The balancing factor to a degree is weight restrictions since it allows you to not have so many big guns on either side. If you want an actual BT feel in a MW title, then weapons being unbalanced is acceptable. It actually gives the game taste and feel.

[Khobai]

you dont have to repeat yourself. we knew you were wrong the first time.