183 replies to this topic

[Raggedyman]

Sarlic, on 15 April 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

Do people actually know how hard it is to balance a game?

Thanks for the patch.

Sure; you take a game originally written for table-top war gaming, multiply by 6 previous video game experiences, add mmo considerations and a whole new game dynamic, factor the technical restrictions of limited technology, then divide by the expectations of each individual player.

10 minutes on the back of a cigarette packet, tops.

Edited by Raggedyman, 15 April 2014 - 10:49 PM.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Koniving, on 15 April 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

O.o; Russ might be the one that needs to go. He wants autocannons that do lots of damage in a single shot because it looks cool.

I never understood the logic behind doubling armor for longer fights and then buffing the weapons. All it does is devalue smaller weapons and promote identical strong weapon stacking.

nevermind rewarding bad light pilots by making their mistakes cost less through this method, along with removing knockdown.

weapons should not be the only balance metric. since we're already into fantasy armor area, might as well make armor amount variable as well for balancing purposes. The more offensive equipped the mech or mech variant, the less armor is has from the standard, and vice a versa.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 15 April 2014 - 11:45 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Battlecruiser, on 15 April 2014 - 11:36 PM, said:

I never understood the logic behind doubling armor for longer fights and then buffing the weapons. All it does is devalue smaller weapons and promote identical strong weapon stacking.

nevermind rewarding bad light pilots by making their mistakes cost less through this method, along with removing knockdown.

weapons should not be the only balance metric. since we're already into fantasy armor area, might as well make armor amount variable as well for balancing purposes. The more offensive equipped the mech or mech variant, the less armor is has from the standard, and vice a versa.

They did it to make the twitch shooter fans happy. You can tell that a weight class is overpowered by how many of that weight class are in a single game. I see many games with more than 1/3 lights.

[Sarlic]

Raggedyman, on 15 April 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

Sure; you take a game originally written for table-top war gaming, multiply by 6 previous video game experiences, add mmo considerations and a whole new game dynamic, factor the technical restrictions of limited technology, then divide by the expectations of each individual player.

10 minutes on the back of a cigarette packet, tops.

I am also not always happy with the changes PGI made. I understand the frustrations among the players, but that does not justify to bash PGI. It's already hard enough to balance a game like this. They could be like other developers who don't care or even listen to their community. You simply cant make every player happy...

Edited by Sarlic, 16 April 2014 - 12:00 AM.

[Kmieciu]

Raggedyman, on 15 April 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

Sure; you take a game originally written for table-top war gaming, multiply by 6 previous video game experiences, add mmo considerations and a whole new game dynamic, factor the technical restrictions of limited technology, then divide by the expectations of each individual player.

10 minutes on the back of a cigarette packet, tops.

Or you could, you know, play your game or at least have some focus group to listen to.
Paul Inouye does not comprehend MWO mechanics. He thinks that DPS is important while completely disregarding heat generation. He also does not know that DPS is not that useful in MWO. The important thing is to put your damage on a single component, preferably the center torso, as quickly as possible, then hide safely in cover. If a mech only needs 1 second to jump out of cover and pump out an accurate 2xPPC+AC10 alpha strike, it effectively has 30 DPS.

Edited by Kmieciu, 15 April 2014 - 11:59 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Sky Hawk, on 15 April 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

C-Bill for MC... OK... But, I really hope, next time will come the "Buy MC for C-Bill Package" too.

Kjudoon, on 15 April 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

If they made the price point right, I'd grind for that... but it does ruin their business model.

well people would be more encouraged to play for more hours and players are ingame content so if the price was right such as 10mil for a mechbay or whatever it would help grow an consistant online playerbase. i'm sure pgi want that as well as the few who don't understand buying and selling mechs is more effcient way to generate c-bills.

[Vaenson]

For sure its difficult to balance a game with so much dependencies... but at times i just miss the road the balancing changes follow. Also every change means that i need to spend tons of c-bills again for the new meta chassis :/.

Beside that one thing about the people who argue here like if they programmed tons of mechwarrior games allready and know everything better. Please post the links to the games you programmed that i can try them out. thx

[PhoenixFire55]

Archon, on 15 April 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

I'm very frustrated about the changes to the AC's, especially the speed nerfs. Please consider reverting these changes and stop trying to overbalance weapons that are already fine. It seems like whichever weapon happens to be even moderately effective ends up getting nerfed. It's really sucking the fun out of this game.

I can understand the recycle time changes as ACs were vastly better than anything else DPS wise. They are balanced in TT, because all weapons has same recycle rates, unlike here. But ... speed nerfs for ACs happening over last few months is just BS. AC20 is already firing like a LongTom with a bloody artillery arc. These are direct fire weapons for a reason, I can friggin make my AC10s drop at targets behind cover because of their huge drop. I see yet another epic fail effort to de-sync direct fire meta, but you guys in PGI are working in a wrong direction. Your bandaids are already breaking the game. FIX the REAL issue.

[PhoenixFire55]

Ted The Prussian Striker, on 15 April 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Did it ever occur to you that this might be intentional? By nerfing every weapon that is working, PGI forces you and others to re-learn an aspect of the game you already mastered. I guess this is all we get instead of new content.

They can't fix the weapons that aren't working so they nerf weapons that work so that they aren't working either. Balance achieved, game ruined ...

[XMJM]

What the f... seriously?

I made a comeback to this game a few weeks ago after over an year or so brake and noticed that the matchmaker used in this game is still rigged, continuously putting me in losing teams where I do as much damage as my small mechs can do and end up in big defeat streaks.

Anyway when I came back I noticed that I had one commando and raven in my garage plus some cash ~3mil. Played a few games with them and noticed that there were no way I was able to do damage or win with those things. So I decided to buy a hunchback-4g since I remember that it was fairly good and cheap mech. Tried a few weapons, discarded the AC20 and put 3xAC2 + 1 medium laser in it. Success. I was able to fight long range battles and some close range battles against big money mechs doing good damage and feeling that I could somehow make wins myself.

Then I decided to go elite and buy 2 other Hunchback models 4P and the 4J, 4P being somewhat useful and 4J being as bad as the worst nightmare. Used my GXP to research basic skills to the 4J as it was too horrible to play with. After investing about 10mils and lots of general XP, I got my 4G "free-to-play" mech in shape and elited in this week. Was doing great battles and trying to turn my winratio positive.

Before:
http://postimg.org/image/c8hefk3hp/
http://postimg.org/image/tj7t7kv59/
http://postimg.org/image/m0t9cot65/
http://postimg.org/image/9m1vymca5/
http://postimg.org/image/sbtvfd50t/
http://postimg.org/image/xw6cq03vx/


Then to the wtf part:

Today:
http://postimg.org/image/d72cvl67h/
http://postimg.org/image/5sd137kbx/
http://postimg.org/image/w1y3m0699/
-->Only defeats, cannot compete against rigged matchmaker, not enough fire power anymore

Today I notice that you have cut the rate of fire and range of AC2. Why? So that I'd had to buy myself expensive mech to fight efficiently? I say no thanks, you can keep your game with rigged matchmaker and enormous amount of long range missile spam coming over every cover I manage to find. Now that I don't have enough fire rate to compete against big mech coming at me, neither to snipe from a distance to be safe of missile spam, and that I have used all my resources to pimp up that 4G, there's nothing left in this game for me. Aurevoir!

[PhoenixFire55]

Solis Obscuri, on 15 April 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

Since when have AC/2s actually been a problem that they have to keep getting nerfed?

Everything is just being brought to SRM level of uselessness to achieve balance. Thus the reason for AC2 nerf, cry all the AC2 boats that dominated both PUGs and 12-mans. The hit-detection fixes that brought my hit-detection ratio from 85% to 65% are also a great step towards a balanced game.

[PhoenixFire55]

Koniving, on 15 April 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

Meanwhile, the lore is that they are automatic and burst fire weapons that fire -- and mind you not just one but MANY -- tank rounds until sufficient rounds are fired down range to meet the damage rating. So they would look even cooler while being much easier to balance due to not being max upfront damage anymore.

I've had this same discussion with my unit buddies. I believe lore says that there are both variants with total damage in one slug as well as burst fire multiple slugs. I'd really love to see the option to actually choose which model you want as obviousely they all have their purposes, but ...

Hit detection is ****** as is. Sever is haveing problems correctly registering one hit, let alone a dozen or so within a short period of time, so I doubt the burst fire will ever happen.

[Kinski Orlawisch]

Feedback?
Changes for me since the patch.
1. Jagermech, Banshee, Battelmaster and my Shadowhawk AC2 builds have changed their weapon loadout.
Some are now AC5, some LRM instead of AC2. The rate of fire from the AC2 and the range dropped very hard.
OK no coolshoots needed anymore..thats a plus.

2. Heavy rubber banding and warping enemys.

3. Dmg is coming in sometimes with a very long delay. Suddenly withou weapon fire..15sec after the fight where I didn t got dmg, I droped down by 5-20%.

4. Heavy delay in the mechlab after changing a mech, or after making ready. It takes the Server approx 5sec to get it that I m ready.


......

[nagdamnit]

Think the AC balancing was a good move.

Decent patch so far.

[POWR]

CapperDeluxe, on 15 April 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Nope, the activity is low for other reasons (CW, ghost heat, VOIP, take yer pick)

I will bet you anything that if ghost heat was removed activity would not be increased. VOIP I will bet you that 99% of players will disable instantly and never ever use. Leaving the use of VOIP to the people dropping in teams who had already set up teamspeak servers and these people will complain that the ingame voip is not as good as their customised, paid for hosted software solution.

[FlipOver]

Dawnstealer, on 15 April 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Quote

View Postflipover, on 15 April 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there go the weapon groups...

Arrrrrgh - they reset again??

It happened to 20% of my mechs, one of them being my main battlemech.

Now everytime a patch is released I started a new kind of routine:
1 - Check Weapon Groups
2 - Check weapon changes in training grounds
3 - Check FPS change
4 - And only then I go and check specific stuff the patch is supposed to fix
5 - Actually play the game if it's still playable

Now, regarding C-Bills for MCs, was just a matter of time before that happened and it is a good idea from PGI. More revenue streaming their way.
Don't think it will ever be possible to do the opposite, though.

About the weapon nerfs and all that ballance stuff:
Guys and galls, please stop raging against every single change that's been made. I've learned to adapt and follow through. Do the same and wait until the sh*t hits the fan when Clans and ClanTech come, then it will be a good time to get the pop-corns and watch the movie featured in the forums (be ready for a long lasting movie, at least one or 2 months long, so sit in a comfortable chair).

[Kinski Orlawisch]

I don t rage against weapon changes. I just remove weapons wich make no sense anymore. Ok this can demand to Change from FF to Standard armor or something like that..but ist OK. Fewer ACs now, more LRM/PPCs. Ist fine for me.

[Mister Blastman]

Sarlic, on 15 April 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

Do people actually know how hard it is to balance a game?

Thanks for the patch.

It isn't hard. The rules of balancing are simple:
1. Make one team the cops/jailkeepers/warden.

2. Make the other team the prisoners. Take all their cookies and toys away.

3. Watch the prisoners suffer.

4. Profit? (after the inevitable revolt per the study done years ago)

-or-

1. Give Team A nuclear weapons.

2. Give Team B stones.

3. Profit.


Oh. Sorry. What have I done? I think I got those ideas from the wrong book of balance.

[Aleski]

On SARNA.NET :

LCT-5W2 : Developed from a Word of Blake design, this Locust has a top speed of over 150 km/h, and used MASC to provide bursts of speed topping out at over 180 km/h. A pair of ER Medium Lasers provides firepower, while a C3 Slave, Guardian ECM Suite, and TAG system provide electronic support. The chassis uses Endo-Steel while an XL Engine provides power. The Locust is protected by Light Ferro-Fibrous armor. Double Heat Sinks keep the heat from the weapons under control. BV (2.0) = 787^[50]

• LCT-6M : The newest variant of the Locust, the 6M used a massive 280 Hermes XL Engine to propel it to an astounding speed of 226.8 km/h and was capable of bursts of speed reaching 302.4 km/h through a MASC system. The 6M used a Small Cockpit to save weight with the side effect of making the 'Mech harder to pilot and utilized Ferro-Fibrous armor to get the most of the light armor the 'Mech carried. It was armed with two Magna Mk VI ER Medium Lasers, which were backed up by a single Magna Mk IV ER Small Laser. The -6M was produced by Corean Enterprises on Stewart.^[51][52] BV (2.0) = 956^[53]

Why don't you have made this two beautifull variants? You were having the possibility to increase the utility of th e Locust. And you fail... ='(



Well, other variants from SHD and BLR are not so bad =)

Edited by Aleski, 16 April 2014 - 03:17 AM.

[Gasoline]

Aleski, on 16 April 2014 - 03:16 AM, said:

On SARNA.NET :

LCT-5W2 : Developed from a Word of Blake design, this Locust has a top speed of over 150 km/h, and used MASC to provide bursts of speed topping out at over 180 km/h. A pair of ER Medium Lasers provides firepower, while a C3 Slave, Guardian ECM Suite, and TAG system provide electronic support. The chassis uses Endo-Steel while an XL Engine provides power. The Locust is protected by Light Ferro-Fibrous armor. Double Heat Sinks keep the heat from the weapons under control. BV (2.0) = 787^[50]

• LCT-6M : The newest variant of the Locust, the 6M used a massive 280 Hermes XL Engine to propel it to an astounding speed of 226.8 km/h and was capable of bursts of speed reaching 302.4 km/h through a MASC system. The 6M used a Small Cockpit to save weight with the side effect of making the 'Mech harder to pilot and utilized Ferro-Fibrous armor to get the most of the light armor the 'Mech carried. It was armed with two Magna Mk VI ER Medium Lasers, which were backed up by a single Magna Mk IV ER Small Laser. The -6M was produced by Corean Enterprises on Stewart.^[51][52] BV (2.0) = 956^[53]

Why don't you have made this two beautifull variants? You were having the possibility to increase the utility of th e Locust. And you fail... ='(

Maybe because they'll be introduced in 3071 and 3079 respectively?