166 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 08 March 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

From what I see, the easy button is what some want taken out.

There are two ways of looking at it.

Lets use the AC40 jager. Some people think its an easy button, others laugh at it.

Removing it somehow or nerfing it may be something people say is removing the easy button.

Not removing it and forcing players to learn its counters so they play properly is also removing the easy button.

Both have points.

[Craig Steele]

@ Varent, idk.

There are some holes for sure but overall I think the game is fairly well balanced.

The issue imo is that those holes get exploited and min max'd and then it becomes a mainstream problem.

PGI seem to take their time recognising and correcting like that.

SP, I get what you're saying about role warfare and agree, but lights are capable of a lot more than just scouting

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 08 March 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

@ Varent, idk.

There are some holes for sure but overall I think the game is fairly well balanced.

The issue imo is that those holes get exploited and min max'd and then it becomes a mainstream problem.

PGI seem to take their time recognising and correcting like that.

SP, I get what you're saying about role warfare and agree, but lights are capable of a lot more than just scouting

As I said at the start, I like MWO and enjoy it. This post is because I dont want people to be so dead set on mwo being ONE thing that they drive away others basically.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

There are two ways of looking at it.

Lets use the AC40 jager. Some people think its an easy button, others laugh at it.

Removing it somehow or nerfing it may be something people say is removing the easy button.

Not removing it and forcing players to learn its counters so they play properly is also removing the easy button.

Both have points.

Well, the counter is normally a 25-45 FLD alpha delivered via JJs, from 400ishM away.

I know how to use it to decent effect, but I certainly don't enjoy them.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I'm an average/good player (Roadbeer can attest now that we've actually been in a game together).

I think balance involves every weapon having a place on the battlefield. It doesn't mean that an LRM 20 and an AC 20 have to be exactly equal.

It just means if I bring an LRM 20, I have as much of a chance to do well in a drop with my skill that I do with an AC 20.

Sure it may require two completely different play styles, and one is for long range and one (should be) is for short range.

But the general idea is that i'll do well with either one.

The problem is right now. If I drop with an LRM 20, depending on the other team, it could be great or could be a complete dud.

Whereas if I drop with an AC/20, you sure as hell better believe I'm going to put some hurting on someone.

The Jager comparison isn't quite right by the way.

A dual AC/20 Jager is always dangerous. Even the best player who turns a corner and runs into one is going to take some damage.

The debate is generally around the draw backs. Some people feel it's armor and use of XL engine makes it weak enough that they feel it's not that big a deal, other people feel that anything that packs a 40 damage pinpoint alpha that is super easy to use and doesn't have a max range of 270 is kind of silly in this game.

But no one should debate that they are VERY easy to use and very dangerous in the hands of a good player.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 08 March 2014 - 05:18 PM.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 08 March 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

Well, the counter is normally a 25-45 FLD alpha delivered via JJs, from 400ishM away.

I know how to use it to decent effect, but I certainly don't enjoy them.

that isnt the only way to counter it at all, though this does show perhaps the need for more people to understand that there are many ways to do something.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 March 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

I'm an average/good player (Roadbeer can attest now that we've actually been in a game together).

I think balance involves every weapon having a place on the battlefield. It doesn't mean that an LRM 20 and an AC 20 have to be exactly equal.

It just means if I bring an LRM 20, I have as much of a chance to do well in a drop with my skill that I do with an AC 20.

Sure it may require two completely different play styles, and one is for long range and one (should be) is for short range.

But the general idea is that i'll do well with either one.

The problem is right now. If I drop with an LRM 20, depending on the other team, it could be great or could be a complete dud.

Whereas if I drop with an AC/20, you sure as hell better believe I'm going to put some hurting on someone.

The Jager comparison isn't quite right by the way.

A dual AC/20 Jager is always dangerous. Even the best player who turns a corner and runs into one is going to take some damage.

The debate is generally around the draw backs. Some people feel it's armor and use of XL engine makes it weak enough that they feel it's not that big a deal, other people feel that anything that packs a 40 damage pinpoint alpha that is super easy to use and doesn't have a max range of 270 is kind of silly in this game.

But no one should debate that they are VERY easy to use and very dangerous in the hands of a good player.

I would have to disagree on the jager, but again this gets back to the concept that I mentioned of there being two ways of dealing with it. The ac40 jager is considered a joke build in higher elo. Newer players do well with it, More advanced players steer clear of it. And yet its complained about at an astonishing amount.

This plays into the concept of there again, being multiple ideas and both sides need to be respected.

[Sandpit]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 March 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

I'm an average/good player (Roadbeer can attest now that we've actually been in a game together).

I think balance involves every weapon having a place on the battlefield. It doesn't mean that an LRM 20 and an AC 20 have to be exactly equal.

It just means if I bring an LRM 20, I have as much of a chance to do well in a drop with my skill that I do with an AC 20.

Sure it may require two completely different play styles, and one is for long range and one (should be) is for short range.

But the general idea is that i'll do well with either one.

The problem is right now. If I drop with an LRM 20, depending on the other team, it could be great or could be a complete dud.

Whereas if I drop with an AC/20, you sure as hell better believe I'm going to put some hurting on someone.

The Jager comparison isn't quite right by the way.

A dual AC/20 Jager is always dangerous. Even the best player who turns a corner and runs into one is going to take some damage.

The debate is generally around the draw backs. Some people feel it's armor and use of XL engine makes it weak enough that they feel it's not that big a deal, other people feel that anything that packs a 40 damage pinpoint alpha that is super easy to use and doesn't have a max range of 270 is kind of silly in this game.

But no one should debate that they are VERY easy to use and very dangerous in the hands of a good player.

Yes and no

What Varent was getting at (and I was pointing out in my first post) is that instead of adapting and learning to counter builds like that you have some that say it's "op" and in the name of "balance" it should be removed. The balance here is far from perfect but it's in a pretty good spot in my opinion. Some agree, some disagree. I have no doubts though that there are a few (i'd say more than a few but I digress) that come on here and want something "balanced" or removed simply because they, as an individual, can't, won't, or don't know how to counter it so it MUST be the game as opposed to them being able to progress in knowledge and skill to be able to counter things like that like MANY other players are able to do.

That's what I mean by an easy button. Instead of taking advice, tips, etc. on how to counter the

"I started this thread because I got killed by (insert latest bandwagon here) so it's obviously "imbalanced" and "op" because it's much easier for them to do that than actually work at beating that. It's the same type of gamer who, several years ago, would look up the god code for a game as soon as they got it. It's the exact same mentality here except there's no magic code so they use "balance" in order to get devs to make things easier for them.

A good example I use a lot was Lurmageddon. THAT was an example of something that was way out of balance and caused havoc across the entire game regardless of individual skill.

It's definitely a fine line when talking about this because it's also somewhat subjective.

[Craig Steele]

Varent, on 08 March 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

As I said at the start, I like MWO and enjoy it. This post is because I dont want people to be so dead set on mwo being ONE thing that they drive away others basically.

Yes well if your point is about the community being a proverbial at times, hard to argue with that.

Some people just want to watch the world burn?

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 08 March 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

Yes well if your point is about the community being a proverbial at times, hard to argue with that.

Some people just want to watch the world burn?

Unfortunately. You can take a look in K-Town and over on the SC forums for evidence of that.

[General Taskeen]

3) PGI based their ideas off of TT, by picking and choosing at will (also called cherry picking)

and that's a recipe for disaster, that's a cold hard fact

Edited by General Taskeen, 08 March 2014 - 06:45 PM.

[Sephlock]

Too many people don't really understand that "balance" does not mean "I get to be a badass without honing at skills whatsoever".


This is what happens to brawlers at mid-to-high ELO.

[Willard Phule]

Sandpit, on 08 March 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

Yes and no

What Varent was getting at (and I was pointing out in my first post) is that instead of adapting and learning to counter builds like that you have some that say it's "op" and in the name of "balance" it should be removed. The balance here is far from perfect but it's in a pretty good spot in my opinion. Some agree, some disagree. I have no doubts though that there are a few (i'd say more than a few but I digress) that come on here and want something "balanced" or removed simply because they, as an individual, can't, won't, or don't know how to counter it so it MUST be the game as opposed to them being able to progress in knowledge and skill to be able to counter things like that like MANY other players are able to do.

That's what I mean by an easy button. Instead of taking advice, tips, etc. on how to counter the

"I started this thread because I got killed by (insert latest bandwagon here) so it's obviously "imbalanced" and "op" because it's much easier for them to do that than actually work at beating that. It's the same type of gamer who, several years ago, would look up the god code for a game as soon as they got it. It's the exact same mentality here except there's no magic code so they use "balance" in order to get devs to make things easier for them.

A good example I use a lot was Lurmageddon. THAT was an example of something that was way out of balance and caused havoc across the entire game regardless of individual skill.

It's definitely a fine line when talking about this because it's also somewhat subjective.

This ENTIRE post is all YOUR OPINION..and not fact. This whole thing is what YOU think, not what everyone thinks.

[redacted]

Edited by miSs, 09 March 2014 - 01:01 AM.

[Varent]

Willard Phule, on 08 March 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

This ENTIRE post is all YOUR OPINION..and not fact. This whole thing is what YOU think, not what everyone thinks.

....what are you talking about? Someone posted there opinon, He posted his opinion. The concept and theory was in regards to a specific build that people widely disagree about. There is no facts there. It was an opinion on both sides. Im not even sure what your saying in regards to sticking up for PGI... his post didnt mention anything about PGI... it was about understanding that not everything requires the nerf button... but instead its about learning how to counter something properly...

[Craig Steele]

Willard Phule, on 08 March 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

This ENTIRE post is all YOUR OPINION..and not fact. This whole thing is what YOU think, not what everyone thinks.

(1) So I'm confused. If you didn't read the post why the emotive response?

Isn't Sandpit saying its not balanced but its not terible but a lot of people post on forums expressing frustration about something without exploring other options such as changing their game play?

I don't see anything in his post defending PGI?

What did I miss?

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 08 March 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

(1) So I'm confused. If you didn't read the post why the emotive response?

Isn't Sandpit saying its not balanced but its not terible but a lot of people post on forums expressing frustration about something without exploring other options such as changing their game play?

I don't see anything in his post defending PGI?

What did I miss?

riiiiiight?

Im so confused lol....

[xxREVxx]

Outstanding read, Varent.
Hope the devs take time to read it.

I especially agree with you about the sizes of maps...we need more room...room to hunt, room to manuever/outmanuever...room to hunt (did I say that twice?). Sustained engagements. Not Capwarrior/Arena mode. Maps are too small. MW4 still has more interesting maps....


Rev

Apologies, community...no sermon today

Edited by Reverend Poison, 08 March 2014 - 08:23 PM.

[Roland]

Reverend Poison, on 08 March 2014 - 08:15 PM, said:

Outstanding read, Varent.
Hope the devs take time to read it.

I especially agree with about the sizes of maps...we need more room...room to hunt, room to manuever/outmanuever...room to hunt (did I say that twice?). Sustained engagements. Not Capwarrior/Arena mode. Maps are too small. MW4 still has more interesting maps....

MW4's maps were indeed almost all huge by comparison to MWO maps... Of course, in the competitive leagues, we also had matches that would tend to last between 30 minutes and an hour. I'm not sure MWO's playerbase has that kind of patience.

However, if you want more complex engagements, just play Skirmish.. That's why that mode is better than the others. You can actually use the whole map if you want.

Unfortunately, if you are Pugging, most of the time in Skirmish both teams just run directly towards center.. Even though there is literally no reason to... because, reasons?

Alpine, for instance.. or even the much hated Terra Therma... Both those maps are quite large (although not as large as many of the MW4 maps). But folks rarely take advantage of their size. There are places on those maps that I suspect 90% of the playerbase has never even SEEN.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Balance is about variety and the ability to reach the same goal thru various means. One batch of weapons should not dominate the game to the point that taking anything else is pointless, it should just require different tactics and playstyles, making for more ways for people to play the game. In the TT, a mech like the Awesome with 3 PPC's, an Archer with LRM's, and a Hunchback with AC20 and med. lasers would be played very differently. The Hunch would need to get in close to do damage, but would be useless and just a target at long range; the Archer could put out long range fire with LRM's, though the damage would not be concentrated, and could provide limited in close fire with its 4 med. lasers; and the Awesome could dish out deadly long range powerful strikes with its PPC's, but would suffer in close range combat with just a single sm. lasers (especially in MWO with no melee combat.) That means those mechs would never be used the same, and would promote different playstyles. Now however, we are stuck with the current meta of heavy FLD direct fire, usually by AC's and PPC's, and most other weapons just can't compete. Its ok if a weapon or mech chassis is considered 'better', but it should not be flat out 'best'.

[wintersborn]

Good points in the OP but may I add another balance aspect that causes new players to not have fun and leave not just make nerf posts.

It is the balance between new or less skilled solo players playing with the high skilled coordinated teams. They get frustrated, mad and find that the game has no place for them to have casual/solo fun.

Yes, its the evil pre made/sync drop boogie man issue as many call it but it is a real balance issue to a specific group of potential customers.

It seems PGI can not seem to please all player/customer bases without angering someone and I think that is the point of the OP.

I know more people that have left or stopped playing this game due to this issue than any weapons balance issue by far.

I know you guys with the tags next to your name or the TT fanatics hate this issue and think we should all conform or leave. To me it is less of a balance issue to conform to the meta than it is to conform to the pre made e-sport game play.

Edited by wintersborn, 08 March 2014 - 08:36 PM.

[Deathz Jester]

I think a large majority of problems could be remedied if they would restructure the way hardpoints work. The way (on paper) they've described the Clan mech customization sounds very appealing, however the whole idea of Clan Mechs was they had more "options" of customization because of their modular design than Innersphere mechs. Right now (not that I favor Clans) Clan battlemechs seem to have less customization options than Innsphere mechs.


I'd like it if they did something other than what we have now, a little more restriction would be nice, and would cut down on "cheese-builds".

Plus another suggestion would be to have a "Stock Only" ladder to see if you could fight in the same conditions as regular mechwarriors.


A sort of World Of Tanks approach to weaponry would be interesting, not exactly but simliar. I dont see many any Sherman tanks mounting 150mm howitzers that a gun carriage would carry normally. Sort of like putting an AC20/Gauss on a Raven, which is silly, that would be a lengthy and very expensive procedure that I would expect to see some major visual changes to the mechs structure. Yes tanks and battlemechs aren't the same and one is real world and the other isn't but if I want a light mech built around a cannon I'd go for an Urbanmech or a Hollander.

Then again thats just my 2¢

Edited by Iron Harlequin, 08 March 2014 - 08:51 PM.