147 replies to this topic

[Davers]

Cimarb, on 05 July 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

You may not have understood the point. Giving Role Warfare rewards, such as spotting and capping, is made to incentivize lighter mechs, helping to balance out the weight classes. We need to reward mechs for the roles they are designed, and therefore inherently better at, so that people will play the roles they WANT to play, instead of the only ones that they get rewarded for, which are combat roles (which heavy+ is designed for).


I think you are mixing them up. Tagging is actually using TAG (the laser pointer), which as has already been pointed out only lasts as long as you hold it on the target mech, while NARC'ing is using NARC, which lasts 30 seconds without module buffs and "bursts the bubble" of a single ECM.


Read up about BV. It valuates a weapon based upon the heat, damage, cooldown, tonnage and other factors. Popularity does not matter directly, though they are related.

You also do not have a very good grasp of TT, as LRMs may hit just as easily as lasers, but you then have to role for how MANY hit, which reduces their effectiveness compared to lasers. They are a bit more equalized in MWO, as they both spread their damage (LRMs by area and lasers by duration).


Exactly. "Bigger rewards" is not enough, though. It has to be a time investment reward. The longer you cap the point, the more points you get. The longer you spot a particular mech, the more points you get (giving "damage assist" is a good way to do this, as the spotting mech would get a partial cbill reward for the damage the ally gave, instead of just how much damage they did themselves).

I am quite familiar with how TT WORKS. And that is why I say it doesn't work in MW:O.
Every weapon has the same chance to hit in it's range bracket. There are no 'better with lasers than PPC' pilots in TT.

[Cimarb]

R Razor, on 05 July 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

You are correct but that is the fault of the game designers............in THIS GAME, lights should not expect to be able to stand up against a heavy or assault in a 1 v 1 situation.

As to my being happy fulfilling support roles, yes I do enjoy it, I like helping my team win in whatever role my mech best fits. I do not subscribe to the COD mentality that dominates this game and these forums. Strategy and Tactics are far more interesting to me than spacebar click boom ever will be.

No one fix is going to resolve these issues, it needs several changes, to rewards, to objectives and to in game mechanics overall.

All of this I agree with. (I removed the snarky parts, lol)

Davers, on 05 July 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

I am quite familiar with how TT WORKS. And that is why I say it doesn't work in MW:O.
Every weapon has the same chance to hit in it's range bracket. There are no 'better with lasers than PPC' pilots in TT.

Except for missiles and LBXs, all weapons in TT deal damage the same way - 100% instant damage in a random hit location. If every weapon in MWO dealt damage the same way, it would be a very boring game (with very quick matches).

[Davers]

Cimarb, on 05 July 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

You completely missed the point of Sandpit's post.

The Locust SHOULD be good for capping (since it is the fastest mech in the game) and spotting (since it is fast and very small). The Jenner, on the other hand, is built for capping and skirmishing, since it has better weapon hardpoints and more armor than the Locust.

It does not matter which one is heavier, it matters that heavier mechs are rewarded for their roles (which happen to primarily be damage delivery) and lighter mechs are rewarded for their roles (which happen to primarily be scouting). Mechs in the middle should be decent at both, one way or the other.

For the 20kph difference in speed, I'll take the Jenner every time.

Maybe you are missing my point. I don't care if spotting and capping paid a zillion Cbills.
It is not interesting to spend the whole game looking at the enemy
Or standing in a red square hoping that your team isn't off being murdered

Over the next ridge.
It's not fun, it's boring.
As it is right now you can easily play the game without any lights and nothing would be lost.
They simply aren't needed.

[Deathlike]

R Razor, on 05 July 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

If PGI would grow some stones and implement a HARD RULE 3/3/3/3 and stop bowing to the whiners that aren't happy unless they can play their meta assaults or meta wolves then lights would have a larger role in the outcome of the game than they currently do.

How is forcing 3/3/3/3 across the board going to work? It's doing a bad job now, so just based on what's happening now... it's just going to force crazier queue times and greater skill imbalances.

You can't force something if the majority of people is not interested in it.

Let me go back to the old sentiment.

When the 3L was actually the meta mech with the meta build, everyone tried to run that mech and build all day (with the occasional Commando-2D). "Lights" were in its "best state" for all the wrong reasons (netcode/hitreg, Streak CT-coring, ECM being only countered by more ECM)... but yet it was the thing to do.

I'm not saying we should go back to such a route, but if there is a good reason to field a Light instead of "PGI forced it" or "PGI gave me no reason to", then it would never be such an issue that's ongoing for a while.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 July 2014 - 06:24 PM.

[Silentium]

Devlin Pierce, on 05 July 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

I play a lot of support when I run my lights (Kit Fox mainly). One thing I notice is the lack of recognition we get on the scoreboard. No matter how tame your ego is, everyone wants to be recognized for their contribution.

Mechs that give up firepower for Narcs, AMS, ECM, Tag should be rewarded more then they currently are, and it should be more visible on the scoreboard.

I doubt this will fix the problem entirely, because in the end a large amount of players want to blow **** up and feel the dakka as they tear apart the enemy. It takes a special kind of player to be satisfied with supporting role.

So many times I have felt this. It is hard to justify what you are doing when there is no way to know how critical/non-critical your contributions are. I can only justify it by seeing how badly my ass has been kicked by groups with good support.

[Davers]

Cimarb, on 05 July 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

All of this I agree with. (I removed the snarky parts, lol)


Except for missiles and LBXs, all weapons in TT deal damage the same way - 100% instant damage in a random hit location. If every weapon in MWO dealt damage the same way, it would be a very boring game (with very quick matches).

Geez, I have played TT for years. Please skip past this explanations. I actually run an Intro to BT group...
All pilots in TT are equally skilled with all weapons. There are
No 'newbie only killer weapons' in TT.
This is why BV doesn't translate to TT.

The LRM20 is better in TT than an LRM5. This is not the case in MW:O which is why we can't use BV.

[R Razor]

Deathlike, on 05 July 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

How is forcing 3/3/3/3 across the board going to work? It's doing a bad job now, so just based on what's happening now... it's just going to force crazier queue times and greater skill imbalances.

You can't force something if the majority of people is not interested in it.

Let me go back to the old sentiment.

When the 3L was actually the meta mech with the meta build, everyone tried to run that mech and build all day (with the occasional Commando-2D). "Lights" were in its "best state" for all the wrong reasons (netcode/hitreg, Streak CT-coring, ECM being only countered by more ECM)... but yet it was the thing to do.

I'm not saying we should go back to such a route, but if there is a good reason to field a Light instead of "PGI forced it" or "PGI gave me no reason to", then it would never be such an issue that's ongoing for a while.

And this is the crux of the problem........few have any interest in running lights because they don't "kill" the enemy directly. They don't satisfy the urges the COD crowd needs satisfied. Had the game been designed with roles and objectives that lights were ideal for FROM THE BEGINNING this discussion likely wouldn't even be happening. As it stands now, PGI rewards damage and kills (although assists pay better and lights can make a killing by just passing a laser across every enemy they see) far better than it does spotting, capping or any other support activity.

Make changes to the game mechanics initiating the above mentioned roles and objectives and then implement a hard rule on 3/3/3/3.........let the COD kiddies whine until they quit or adapt..........and in 6 months or so you have a completely different game that actually requires lights to succeed on the battlefield.

[Deathlike]

R Razor, on 05 July 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

And this is the crux of the problem........few have any interest in running lights because they don't "kill" the enemy directly. They don't satisfy the urges the COD crowd needs satisfied. Had the game been designed with roles and objectives that lights were ideal for FROM THE BEGINNING this discussion likely wouldn't even be happening. As it stands now, PGI rewards damage and kills (although assists pay better and lights can make a killing by just passing a laser across every enemy they see) far better than it does spotting, capping or any other support activity.

Make changes to the game mechanics initiating the above mentioned roles and objectives and then implement a hard rule on 3/3/3/3.........let the COD kiddies whine until they quit or adapt..........and in 6 months or so you have a completely different game that actually requires lights to succeed on the battlefield.

I don't see PGI doing that for the foreseeable future.

That's the problem.

It might be that PGI is looking for the COD crowd... and right now very little in the pipeline or "the plan" address that.

[InspectorG]

xXBagheeraXx, on 05 July 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

But what scares me about this would be them doing some unnecessary buff to all lights that make them ungodly hard to kill or some bs, Or overdo the rewards so that the matches are filled with 10 lights. I dont pack streaks that often anymore...

Well, shouldn't that be the case, to change the meta?

Conquest would be light friendly. Less priority to brawling.

Assault would give lights a better role. Anymore i dont really expect a cap.

Skirmish is well, skirmish.

Players can choose which match types to participate in but if one participated in all, a more 'general' buid may be needed. Assuming current metas cant keep pace with a higher priority for light-role-warfare. Or PGI 'fixes' the fld/pinpoint/jump meta.

A simple change to help lights would be to have variable times for matches. A 6 minute conquest could be interesting...or a stall fest.

I hope CW gives lights more purpose, but ill have to wait and see.

[Davers]

R Razor, on 05 July 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

Had the game been designed with roles and objectives that lights were ideal for FROM THE BEGINNING this discussion likely wouldn't even be happening.

Sad but very true. I had always wished for MechCommander style missions instead of nothing but TDM style of play.

[R Razor]

Deathlike, on 05 July 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

It might be that PGI is looking for the COD crowd... and right now very little in the pipeline or "the plan" address that.

I think you can very safely say that this is the case.........financially it makes sense, the COD franchise is a cash cow, so of course they want to siphon off as much of that as they can..........I just wish they would have been more up front about the direction of the game from the beginning instead of advertising it as a "thinking mans shooter" or a "Battelmech Simulator" because it's truly neither of those. Spacebar + RMB + LMB is what it's pretty much devolved to just in the year I've been actively playing.

[Deathlike]

I have a small "working" idea for a role based warfare gamemode that isn't Assault/Skirmish-like.

It's a modified version of MW4's Steal the Beacon or Capture the Flag:
Primary Objective - Steal and bring back the enemy radio/transmitter back to base and hold it for 30 seconds (can be accelerated by Capture Accelerator).
Alt Primary Objective - Capture back your own radio transmitter that is stolen, and hold it based on your weight class (Lights - 15 sec, Medium - 30 sec, Heavy - 45 sec, Assault - 60 sec, times are not finalized and are subject to change)

Secondary Objective (only on maps that are big enough or supported) - Steal and bring back map specific transmitter (you must hold it at the end of the round to gain a bonus)

Only Lights can carry the enemy transmitter (so, when you lose your Lights, it's close to over). Lights spawn near the enemy base, with only Assaults not too close (500+m) within the vicinity (it will be hard to do on Forest Colony for instance) of their base. Heavies are half way between the base and spawn. Mediums are the ONLY class to carry the secondary transmitter as they spawn close to that objective, towards the middle of the map.

When a Light drops the beacon, there is a :15 countdown for it to be picked up, or it would be unrecoverable and disappear and respawn @ the base. If the opfor acquires their own transmitter back, the ETA for recovery depends on their weight class.

The transmitters themselves will show the carrying mech's location like it was on Seismic, in order for both the opfor and your force is able to make a plan of defense or attack.

No Light mech is given the beacon by default, rather it has to be acquired on the enemy base from which they spawn near.

The overall idea can be adjusted, but it puts Lights back onto "some map" instead of "no map".

Mind you, I wish I could draw a picture of my vision, but it would look terrible.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 July 2014 - 07:27 PM.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 05 July 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

Geez, I have played TT for years. Please skip past this explanations. I actually run an Intro to BT group...
All pilots in TT are equally skilled with all weapons. There are
No 'newbie only killer weapons' in TT.
This is why BV doesn't translate to TT.

The LRM20 is better in TT than an LRM5. This is not the case in MW:O which is why we can't use BV.

The difference is like this

New TT = no better "skill" wise when attacking due to dice rolls. BUT there's a huge differential in tactics. A new player isn't going to know the best order in which to move your mechs when you win or lose initiative, facing, firing arcs, etc.

New MWO = skills AND tactics. You can have the best "shooter" player in the world in this game but if they don't use some tactics and strategy they're going to get owned. Vice versa, you can take the world's greatest TT Btech player and if they don't know how to aim and have a modicum of skill in shooting, they'll get owned.

MWO has to find the right balance and figure out how to make it more enticing. I see what you're saying about you'd take a jenner over the locust regardless of rewards but more people would take them. I'm not saying it would magically push Locusts to the top of the ladder but it would create an environment where more players WOULD take them. That's a start.

Then if they would just add in that scaling economy where popular mechs kept having their price increased and unpopular mechs kept having their prices decrease, that would be another incentive.

Then add in objectives where faster = more efficient and there's a few more that would

Combining all of those is what will start to get us more variety on the battlefield. It gives more players more options. Even if Player A sees a pretty locust for real cheap, notices there are bonuses attached to it, buys it, and uses it for say.... 15 matches, that means for 15 matches you have an extra locust running around.

Then 2-3 other players goof off with it here and there. So on and so forth, you'll never see the locust become "the" mech, but you can increase it (and the others like it in various weight classes) which would in turn increase the frequency in which you see them. It's little things like that that will slowly but surely begin to show some diversity in mechs taken.

If player A can earn... 10% bonus to cbills, then they'll take that mech out when they're trying to grind up some cash. They'll especially do this if they know there's at least some minor chance they'll be matched up with other locusts and have objectives that don't require it to fight the majority of the time.

It's just about creating options for players so that they want to take those types of mechs out.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 05 July 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

length

Yea, stuff like that would help as well. Or have it set up where only certain mechs with certain weights could do it or even certain modules and such. Or even have it set up with a base that has mines around it. Oh, there's an idea!

Similar to yours but the enemy's base is protected by minefields that are set to 25 tons. So anything over 25 tons stepping into the area goes boom. Or even use architecture. Make a building with narrow and/or low ceilings that only allow mechs with small profiles to get through them. Stuff like that doesn't even require much in the way of "work" for the devs. Just design.

[Cimarb]

Davers, on 05 July 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

For the 20kph difference in speed, I'll take the Jenner every time.

Maybe you are missing my point. I don't care if spotting and capping paid a zillion Cbills.
It is not interesting to spend the whole game looking at the enemy
Or standing in a red square hoping that your team isn't off being murdered

Over the next ridge.
It's not fun, it's boring.
As it is right now you can easily play the game without any lights and nothing would be lost.
They simply aren't needed.

I totally appreciate that, as I have already said, but it is YOUR opinion. I am trying to get PGI to change things so playing without lights is BAD, because they have an actual JOB to do, be it capping, scouting, and/or spotting. It does not mean I am trying to get rid of the ability to skirmish or brawl in lights. I have already said all this stuff already, but something is getting lost in the translation.

Davers, on 05 July 2014 - 06:29 PM, said:

Geez, I have played TT for years. Please skip past this explanations. I actually run an Intro to BT group...
All pilots in TT are equally skilled with all weapons. There are
No 'newbie only killer weapons' in TT.
This is why BV doesn't translate to TT.

The LRM20 is better in TT than an LRM5. This is not the case in MW:O which is why we can't use BV.

What Sandpit said. Maybe hearing it from someone other than me will get it to sink in.

I give explanations to help in your understanding of what I am saying. I cannot know what you know or do not know, so I assume that you do not know until you state otherwise.

On top of that, BV translates just fine, because it is all based upon item stats. Item stats in MWO are identical to that in TT, with the only exception being duration weapons, and possibly impulse. The duration can very easily be added to the calculation, as can impulse, but otherwise the system can be brought over almost identically.

All BV does is give a value for a particular loadout. It is exactly the same as tonnage, but just much more accurate, and tonnage is exactly the same as weight class, but more accurate.

Weight Class: 4 categories (light, medium, heavy, assault)
Tonnage: 17 categories (20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100)
Battle Value: almost infinite tonnage-overlapping categories

For the record, an LRM20 is better than an LRM5 in many circumstances, especially when you have limited hardpoints.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 05 July 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

I totally appreciate that, as I have already said, but it is YOUR opinion. I am trying to get PGI to change things so playing without lights is BAD, because they have an actual JOB to do, be it capping, scouting, and/or spotting. It does not mean I am trying to get rid of the ability to skirmish or brawl in lights. I have already said all this stuff already, but something is getting lost in the translation.


What Sandpit said. Maybe hearing it from someone other than me will get it to sink in.

I give explanations to help in your understanding of what I am saying. I cannot know what you know or do not know, so I assume that you do not know until you state otherwise.

On top of that, BV translates just fine, because it is all based upon item stats. Item stats in MWO are identical to that in TT, with the only exception being duration weapons, and possibly impulse. The duration can very easily be added to the calculation, as can impulse, but otherwise the system can be brought over almost identically.

All BV does is give a value for a particular loadout. It is exactly the same as tonnage, but just much more accurate, and tonnage is exactly the same as weight class, but more accurate.

Weight Class: 4 categories (light, medium, heavy, assault)
Tonnage: 17 categories (20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100)
Battle Value: almost infinite tonnage-overlapping categories

For the record, an LRM20 is better than an LRM5 in many circumstances, especially when you have limited hardpoints.

Now I don't think BV would work here all on its lonesome. BV has never been a good mechanic when used by itself because, as Davers said, it does not and cannot take skill into consideration. Elo takes skill into consideration but not the mech and/or weapons, tonnage takes into account the weights but not the chassis.

So using all of those (or some form of them) combined is what will help create a better balance of what we're talking about.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 05 July 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Now I don't think BV would work here all on its lonesome. BV has never been a good mechanic when used by itself because, as Davers said, it does not and cannot take skill into consideration. Elo takes skill into consideration but not the mech and/or weapons, tonnage takes into account the weights but not the chassis.

So using all of those (or some form of them) combined is what will help create a better balance of what we're talking about.

I am not saying to use it by itself, any more than we use weight class by itself. It would replace the weight class component of the MM. You would then have BV, Group Size and Elo as the factors, instead of Class, Size and Elo as we currently have.

[Chemistry Warden]

Since I don't want to process data from 180 odd screenshots of end of match scoreboards from the end of may until the latest patch, I'll assume that the 10 I've done so far are representative (I'm sure they're not after the clans arrive due to a marked increase in heavy mech use at the time because, you know, TWOLVES).

Mid-May

2.4 L/t/m
2.95 M/t/m
3.45 H/t/m
3.2 A/t/m

Pre-Patch (8 matches from July 1st)

2.43 L/t/m
3.19 M/t/m
3.375 H/t/m
3 A/t/m

Since the patch (Now 33! samples)

2.03 L/t/m
3 M/t/m (yes, exactly 3)
3.55 H/t/m
3.42 A/t/m

So, not only are there fewer lights than other classes in each match, my data suggests that not only has the last patch done nothing to increasing the number of lights in a match, but has actually decreased the number of lights in each match.

[Sandpit]

Chemistry Warden, on 05 July 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Since I don't want to process data from 180 odd screenshots of end of match scoreboards from the end of may until the latest patch, I'll assume that the 10 I've done so far are representative (I'm sure they're not after the clans arrive due to a marked increase in heavy mech use at the time because, you know, TWOLVES).

Mid-May

2.4 L/t/m
2.95 M/t/m
3.45 H/t/m
3.2 A/t/m

Pre-Patch (8 matches from July 1st)

2.43 L/t/m
3.19 M/t/m
3.375 H/t/m
3 A/t/m

Since the patch (Now 33! samples)

2.03 L/t/m
3 M/t/m (yes, exactly 3)
3.55 H/t/m
3.42 A/t/m

So, not only are there fewer lights than other classes in each match, my data suggests that not only has the last patch done nothing to increasing the number of lights in a match, but has actually decreased the number of lights in each match.

there's a lot of us at this point saying "I told you so" regarding the rule of 3.

[Screech]

Deathlike, on 05 July 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Mind you, I wish I could draw a picture of my vision, but it would look terrible.

You ever seen the movie The Blood of Heroes? Kinda sounds like that with mechs, except the lights would need to get the beacon to the enemy base.