372 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

You are bad at fighting in giant robots.

Or maybe he just doesn't run the meta where high damage single hits are dangerous to lights but using various different weapons means lights are a PITA to kill and it can take a while to finish them off (if they are a good pilot).

[Roland]

No, he's bad.

Honestly, the biggest danger to lights at this point has kind of shifted to clan lasers, since they can start whittling away your armor from across the map, and it takes virtually no actual skill to hit you with them.

Anyone who complains about light mechs though, is bad. They are crazy weak at this point, which is why they only constitute 10% of mechs played at any given time.

[Wolfways]

nehebkau, on 21 July 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Translation:

"I wanna play my heavy NOW! You can't make me wait! You have no right! I paid for it! Its my RIGHT to play now!"

If you want to play an over-utilized weight-class then its your responsibility to accept that, fairness dictates, you are going to have to wait to play.

How the **** can you think it's fair to penalize someone for playing a mech they like?

[Roland]

Wolfways, on 21 July 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

How the **** can you think it's fair to penalize someone for playing a mech they like?

Because for balance reasons, weight classes must be limited.
Learn to like another mech.

[Wolfways]

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

No, he's bad.

Honestly, the biggest danger to lights at this point has kind of shifted to clan lasers, since they can start whittling away your armor from across the map, and it takes virtually no actual skill to hit you with them.

Anyone who complains about light mechs though, is bad. They are crazy weak at this point, which is why they only constitute 10% of mechs played at any given time.

lol. Funny how when i die in my RVN it's almost always by an AC20 (high damage, single hit).
Maybe they could also be played less because it's a "big mech game" which has been represented for years by "big mechs".

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Because for balance reasons, weight classes must be limited.
Learn to like another mech.

It has nothing to do with balance, and i'd rather move to another game if PGI try to force me to play mechs i don't like.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Adiuvo, on 21 July 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

Thinking about it more this is more of a result of dropping in 12mans/groups with some regularity. You'll be sharing damage.

I've been keeping track of my solo drop stats for awhile now, and I just calculated average damage for those games only. Going off of that, what I said was pretty stupid.

Exactly right.

When in a 12 man drop, the average damage per mech will plummet down fast, since everyone on your team is competent and contributing, especially when most players can focus all their damage on one or two locations; resulting in even lower damage.

In the solo queue or playing with a small group, you enter "put the team on my back - land". Since your team other than you and whom you dropped with is a bunch of clueless potatos, its not uncommon to walk out of a win with 650+ damage in a light and 800-1k damage in a heavy/assault. You will contribute to far more kills and do a vast majority of the killing resulting in much higher and overall inflated number values.

12 mans and solo/small group play are two horses of a different color.

[FupDup]

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 04:30 PM, said:

Because for balance reasons, weight classes must be limited.
Learn to like another mech.

For balance, I think I'd prefer to make mechs simply effective in their own "roles" and design the game mechanics such that there are more ways to contribute other than simply farming kills/assists/damage on shoebox sized maps (because otherwise mechs which aren't as suited to those tasks can't shine very well, which primarily means lights and mediums).

If each class had their own strengths/weaknesses balanced out, we wouldn't need to create artificial rules to limit what mechs are being brought. Just like why PGI should have made using 4 PPCs at the same time balanced (in this case, some kind of convergence system), but instead they simply made it 'forbidden' to use them at the same time.



In theory, you should be able to take a full team of 12 Dragon Slayers, and get your butt kicked by a well-balanced team that uses a blend of all weight classes (roughly equal skill for both teams). If having a whole team of heavy/assault mechs is considered advantageous, that means there's a flaw in the game's design to create that trend. In other words, it's better to treat the disease than the symptoms.

Edited by FupDup, 21 July 2014 - 04:56 PM.

[Roland]

That's true in theory, but battletech isn't really set up like that. Some mechs are just better than others.

And that's why you need a battlevalue system.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

FupDup, on 21 July 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

For balance, I think I'd prefer to make mechs simply effective in their own "roles" and design the game mechanics such that there are more ways to contribute other than simply farming kills/assists/damage on shoebox sized maps (because otherwise mechs which aren't as suited to those tasks can't shine very well, which primarily means lights and mediums).

If each class had their own strengths/weaknesses balanced out, we wouldn't need to create artificial rules to limit what mechs are being brought. Just like why PGI should have made using 4 PPCs at the same time balanced (in this case, some kind of convergence system), but instead they simply made it 'forbidden' to use them at the same time.



In theory, you should be able to take a full team of 12 Dragon Slayers, and get your butt kicked by a well-balanced team that uses a blend of all weight classes (roughly equal skill for both teams). If having a whole team of heavy/assault mechs is considered advantageous, that means there's a flaw in the game's design to create that trend. In other words, it's better to treat the disease than the symptoms.

Exactly right, fixing convergence is the issue.

Firing one weapon? Pin point (as now)

Firing two? One may be off a little at range.

Three? A couple weapons might be off target at range.

Four? Maybe one weapon will hit where you're aiming at +500m down range.

But highlander! That is lame! What do you mean I can't fire all my weapons going 89kph when mid air and have perfect accuracy 700m away?!

Well, maybe you'll get a lucky shot every now and then that most shots will land.

Want to improve that accuracy? Stand still, add a C3 Targeting computer (currently not in game for IS...), or don't alpha strike. Firing mid air for any reason (whether actively JJ'ing or free falling) would cause the accuracy of your weapons to become even less so. Still possible to jump snipe, but suddenly its genuinely more difficult and not the end all be all that it has been since MechWarrior 3 in 1999.

Problem the ****** solved.

Edited by mwhighlander, 21 July 2014 - 05:08 PM.

[FupDup]

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

That's true in theory, but battletech isn't really set up like that. Some mechs are just better than others.

And that's why you need a battlevalue system.

Yes, I know how Battletech/TT worked in regards to "balance" (aka power creep and escalating arm's race). I don't like TT's way of handling things, however, and so far no mech game to date offers the same fundamentals of BT (i.e. multiple hitbox system, critslots, tonnage, heatsinks, engines, armor, etc.) but without the power creep element (which is why I'm stuck here with you guys ).


Also, a part of what made TT sort of work under that scenario was that it wasn't a first-person game. It was a turn-based strategy game. Human players didn't directly control mechs, they viewed the map from way above and gave orders to their pewter miniatures. That made it a bit more "impersonal" for lack of a better way to put it.

For example, having a little Panther provide support for my lance/company/whatever was totally fine for me, because I wasn't driving the Panther. I was simply watching him from above and telling him what to do. Like a chess game with robots. But in a first person game, we're not viewing things from up above. We're sitting directly in the cockpit, directly controlling our giant robots. That makes the performance of each individual mech much more "personal" to the player.


As a very drastic example, let's look at the RTS game Starcraft. A Zergling is orders of magnitude weaker than a Battlecruiser, but as a Zerg commander it wouldn't matter because you can control a crapload of them and drown your enemies in an unending tidal wave of bodies. If we translated that to a first person game, though, you wouldn't get to spam Zerglings anymore. You'd be seeing through the eyes of one Zergling and only have control over that one. And when you'd encounter a larger unit like a Battlecruiser or Archon...you might have a bad time.

I think it's safe to say that many people wouldn't have much fun playing as that tiny little Zergling in a battlefield where you only get one unit. People would probably try to logjam the queue with Carriers and Siege Tanks and avoid things playing things like Marines or Probes.


Thus is the issue of trying to port over a strategy game (turn based or otherwise) to a first person setting. The ability to spam weaker units generally isn't allowed...which removes the "asymmetrical advantage" you could have by using them. Battletech made into Mechwarrior games sees similar issues, as evidenced by the queue breakdowns.

Edited by FupDup, 21 July 2014 - 05:13 PM.

[Roland]

True regarding the zergling. That's why I laugh at folks who want to play elementals.

[FupDup]

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 05:14 PM, said:

True regarding the zergling. That's why I laugh at folks who want to play elementals.

To be fair, a hilarious sort of "respawn" rule for custom games might be to allow players to come back as Battle Armor. You still have a huge consequence for dying (lose your mech), but you could still attempt to contribute in some way if you dun goofed (aka be cannon fodder ).

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

The proper response was "SQUIRREL!"

Bleh! I'm not even sure that a Locust pilot has the time to say or go "squirrel"

Speaking of piloting battle armor, do you think that I could just RP my Locust as a 20 ton battle armor/protomech that is like 10+ years ahead of its time? It might actually make my play experience better.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 21 July 2014 - 06:20 PM.

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 21 July 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

Bleh! I'm not even sure that a Locust pilot has the time to say or go "squirrel"

Quote

Y SO SQRRLY?

[Trauglodyte]

That's it, my Locust is now my main and I'm going to hunt down every one of you 25-35 ton sobs. FEAR THE LOCUST!!!

[Lefty Lucy]

Trauglodyte, on 22 July 2014 - 06:55 AM, said:

That's it, my Locust is now my main and I'm going to hunt down every one of you 25-35 ton sobs. FEAR THE LOCUST!!!

Locust legs are delicious in green sauce.

[TercieI]

Lefty Lucy, on 22 July 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

Locust legs are delicious in green sauce.

Like chicken wings: not really enough meat to justify the effort.

[Trauglodyte]

Terciel1976, on 22 July 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

Like chicken wings: not really enough meat to justify the effort.

Which means that all of you will ignore them. SWEET!

[nehebkau]

stjobe, on 21 July 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

Translation:

More to the point your "idea" was tried. The MM couldn't kick off any matches at all, so they had to re-design it with release valves to get any matches going (which kind of defeats the whole idea of 3/3/3/3, but that's another discussion).

The bottom line is this: Forcing people to play something they don't want to play isn't the answer; encouraging people to play something they don't usually play is the answer, and the key to do that is to make the underutilized weight classes (lights and mediums) REWARDING to play - both in XP/CB but also in play experience.

If they are FUN to play, if they are meaningful contributors to the outcome of the match, if they give as good rewards as piloting heavies and assaults, there won't be any shortage any more.

Major flaw in your reward argument -- you believe that rewards will change people's behaviour. Again and again it has been demonstrated (in many psychology studies) that rewards offer a very short term change in behaviour if there is any change at all. For example, there are many rewards for choosing smaller, more energy efficient cars in the USA. There are even state and federal programs that provide real cash advantages for choosing those vehicles. Yet there has been no real change in automotive buying habbits as a result of these programs per giant SUVs and Trucks.

Bringing this to mechwarrior, you assume people are playing for rewards -- they aren't. People I know in game like to drive mechs with more weapons so they can blow s*** up. Do you think that 20% more cbills or experience is going to dissuade someone from piloting their 6 UAC5 Direwolf and switching to a 4ML Jenner? People play big mechs because they like lots of DAKKA or PEW-PEW and mistakes don't matter as much. For those people the FUN aspect is blowing someones arm or leg off with an alpha. You can't 'reward' people into light mechs. The only thing you can do is get them to like playing them and the only way that is going to happen is if they actually play them and get better at doing so.

The only thing that rewards would do is reward the people who would be playing lights and mediums anyway.

The only idea in this whole thread that had any reasonable success which didn't constrain people in some way was the post on giving people the potential to re-spawn (drop more mechs) based on weight. I believe the example was that you could drop 100T into a match be it 1 DWF or 2 jenners and a Cicada or 2 hunchbacks. Nearly impossible for PGI to implement I believe.

FupDup, on 21 July 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

Spoiler

Yes, I know how Battletech/TT worked in regards to "balance" (aka power creep and escalating arm's race). I don't like TT's way of handling things, however, and so far no mech game to date offers the same fundamentals of BT (i.e. multiple hitbox system, critslots, tonnage, heatsinks, engines, armor, etc.) but without the power creep element (which is why I'm stuck here with you guys ).


Also, a part of what made TT sort of work under that scenario was that it wasn't a first-person game. It was a turn-based strategy game. Human players didn't directly control mechs, they viewed the map from way above and gave orders to their pewter miniatures. That made it a bit more "impersonal" for lack of a better way to put it.

For example, having a little Panther provide support for my lance/company/whatever was totally fine for me, because I wasn't driving the Panther. I was simply watching him from above and telling him what to do. Like a chess game with robots. But in a first person game, we're not viewing things from up above. We're sitting directly in the cockpit, directly controlling our giant robots. That makes the performance of each individual mech much more "personal" to the player.


As a very drastic example, let's look at the RTS game Starcraft. A Zergling is orders of magnitude weaker than a Battlecruiser, but as a Zerg commander it wouldn't matter because you can control a crapload of them and drown your enemies in an unending tidal wave of bodies. If we translated that to a first person game, though, you wouldn't get to spam Zerglings anymore. You'd be seeing through the eyes of one Zergling and only have control over that one. And when you'd encounter a larger unit like a Battlecruiser or Archon...you might have a bad time.

I think it's safe to say that many people wouldn't have much fun playing as that tiny little Zergling in a battlefield where you only get one unit. People would probably try to logjam the queue with Carriers and Siege Tanks and avoid things playing things like Marines or Probes.


Thus is the issue of trying to port over a strategy game (turn based or otherwise) to a first person setting. The ability to spam weaker units generally isn't allowed...which removes the "asymmetrical advantage" you could have by using them. Battletech made into Mechwarrior games sees similar issues, as evidenced by the queue breakdowns.

FubDup,
Probably one of the most intelligent posts I've read in a while.

Edited by nehebkau, 22 July 2014 - 07:21 AM.

[Bigbacon]

the CLRM changes have made this even worse....I've almost stopped using my lights now. I take my locust out every so often but that it is and I used to be almost 100% lights only. With the fall damage, the CLRMs in the face at 100m, and the other, mostly, clan based issue, they aren't much fun anymore.

oh and the TW.....to me, lights worst nigtmare, turns on a dime and quickly, and I swear they can keep up REALLY well with even a 150k/hr light.