876 replies to this topic

[Quaamik]

from Vanguard319
In regards to balance: engine damage should affect ALL mechs with mobility and heat penalties, regardless of whether they are IS or clan. I can't agree with the improvement to IS heat sink efficiency, Clan weaponry tends to run hotter to begin with, though I agree adding relevant quirks is one of the few good ideas you've had. As for increasing armor, how about looking into breaking up PPFLD like people have been suggesting for the last several months? The last thing this game needs is a Spider with armor to rival an Atlas.
--------------------------

Engine damage already affects IS mechs. If they lose a portion of a torso with engine in it - they die. The issue is, they can choose to use a standard engine - clan mechs cannot. So seriously penalizing the clan mechs for losing a side torso is a killer for them.

IS heat efficiency could be (and should be) changes to IS weapons ghost heat - not to the base efficiency.

As for armor increases, have you noticed that machine guns, that were supposed to be weapons only useful if the armor is already blown off a mech, can kill an assault all by their lonesome? Have you noticed that the only drawback to ballistics (their ammo load) is not a drawback? Most ballistic loaded mechs only run out f ammo if the ammo is destroyed or the match runs very long (or they are bad shots). There is a reason they are the top choice for high damage mechs. Increasing armor values across the board means the guy with all ballistics has to be concerned about running out f ammo before getting 3 kills and 8 assists. It also means a light running 4 - 6 machine guns can't shred an assault before help can even get to it.

[Peiper]

What happened to the idea that the devs had to reduce tonnage accordingly? They were talking about counting clan mechs AS 5 or 10 tons heavier than they really are. So matchmaker counts a summoner as 80 tons when matching up with other mechs. This would be tough with larger groups with 3 Dire Wolves.... So, then how about this idea: Battle value.

Give each chassis a battle value. If we use a Centurion and an Atlas as our base, let's say we give the Cent a BV: 50 and an Atlas: 100. A Nova would have a BV of 75 and a Dire Wolf 150. Couple that with ELO, and you can balance out things that way. No, it wouldn't be perfect, but it never is.

STOP nerfing clan mechs, and do something that make SENSE! All I'm hearing are EXCUSES on WHY you can't deliver what is expected or promised, and why you can't fix a game you designed. BULLSHIZZLE!!!

[T0RC4ED]

Below is a quote from back in NOV of 2011 about how F2P is going to be great for MWO. Thats almost 3 years ago and Ive got to ask... where is your FULL production level release of Community Warfare? How is it the game at this point still has serious hit detection issues? Why is the match maker an absolute DISASTER and im not talking about any one aspect of it... im talking about the whole thing . How is it that your map design team is incapable dealing with invisible walls? As a couple of side notes MASC is still MIA and collisions have been gone for how long?.This all carrot no stick concept is clearly not working as seen by the above questions.

In response to "How many times have you bought a game for 60 bucks and felt disappointed?" - Its happened once or twice... Now my turn... how many of us spent $120 + what ever Phoenix Overlord cost + $240 for the clan pack and felt disappointed that the developer can't even get the core components of the game to work right after 3 years? Im thinking most of us.

P.S. I hope it didn't take too much deliberation to figure out that if you can't get the matchmaker working correctly with normal groups then 10 v 12 is out of your reach.

Quote

<p>How many times have you bought a game for 60 bucks and felt disappointed? Or if you're like me, paid 60 bucks, played for 2 hours and never touched the game again because you get busy with life or work? Or loved a game so much, that you wished there was more, only to wait 2 years for a sequel! The Free-To-Play model solves this problem by allowing players to drive value and content.</p>[/color]

<p>How does this translate into MechWarrior® Online™? Great question! Let's talk about the design principal we're using to drive MWO, simply referred to as: "All Carrot, No Stick".</p>

Edited by T0RC4ED, 07 September 2014 - 11:01 AM.

[Quaamik]

fom Malleus011
Engine Crits for everyone would be fair; so yes, Clans lose heatsinks when losing an ST, but *all* mechs can take engine criticals
----------------

That could work. Something like each slot of an engine destroyed is equal to one heat sink destroyed, or maybe 1 heat sink destroyed + some additional heat added, with the engine (and mech) being destroyed when a certain percent f the engine slots have been? It doesn't sound like something that hard to add to the programing, and it would make both IS and Clan mechs last longer.

[Quaamik]

Pieper, I think the issue with counting Clan mechs as higher weight, or using a battle value, is that they can't make it work with the 3/3/3/3 rule they implemented. If thy did, once they separated the Clans and the IS, you could never get a Dire Wolf into games, as the opposite team would have to have 2 Atlases in order for someone to have a Dire Wolf in the game. If a team fielded 3 Stalkers, the Clan team couldn't field 3 heavies unless they counted entire team weigh, and then the numbers start to make it harder and harder to match teams.

That said, maybe the 3/3/3/3 is what needs to go, in favor of a weight balance that counts Clans heavier than they re.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Shogun459, on 07 September 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

surprised you did answer. I stand corrected.
Have you run cmpls lately? Had to pull them off my Kit and TW. (the only mechs I could afford) Too hot, got the same heat firing 3 cmpls on chain as I did Alphaing them, the 5% diff is the 5 seconds it takes to chainfire them.
So, can't run Clan ERLs, LPs, MPLs, or plasmas. PGI themselves said, 'We could do something bad or something worse and we choose worse' NOT a good business model.

So if that's what you call balance, I'm taking my money elsewhere.
I've seen this before in 'Warhammer' the Devs picked a side and nerfed them till there was a mass exodus out.
enjoy the IS war. I've been this since closed beta. thought I'd never quit, I was wrong.

But the clan mechs were always supposed to run hotter than IS. That's their thing - they do more damage, but you have to use that thing that was around since closed beta, you should know, called Heat Management. Also why are you complaining about cMPL's? They do more damage, they produce the same heat, and their duration is shorter than cML with the same cooldown. If all you want to do is hold a button down and ignore the heat warning, just switch to cML since the longer beam duration makes them appear cooler - but you're really doing less damage on moving targets because of that, and also because they do less damage overall.

Whats your thing against cLL? They only lost 0.25 in damage, and their heat penalty went DOWN (this is a buff btw) from 12 to 4. Another buff, is that the beam duration doesn't last two seconds anymore - but if you don't know about heat management and only hold down a button, then yes, this will appear to be a heat nerf to you. You can fire more often, but for the same heat cost, however you dish out more damage is a shorter period of time and more often. The -0.25 to damage was to offset this a little.

Sounds to me all you got to do is take your finger off the trigger once and a while and put on more heat sinks. The problem is you, not the weapons. Most pilots here flipping desks are too above themselves to point the finger at themselves instead.
This is nothing like Warhammer. It's a small re-balancing and you should only be angry at yourself for having a heavy finger. Chain fire doesn't mean you can hold the button down and get away scot-free. It chains your weapons. If you want to shoot two of the three, double tap and you spit out two medium lasers. If you only can afford one, only PRESS once. Don't HOLD it down. THAT is Heat Management. And yes, you generate 5% less heat if you use chainfire instead of alpha'ing. That is also the point of chainfiring - to reduce the rate at which you generate heat. Alpha's and chaining both have their place. Learn how and when to use them.

Edit: said mechs instead of weapons.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 07 September 2014 - 11:31 AM.

[GunnyKintaro 01]

great new !!
You guys are doing such a bang up job.....

[Malleus011]

Quaamik, on 07 September 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

fom Malleus011
Engine Crits for everyone would be fair; so yes, Clans lose heatsinks when losing an ST, but *all* mechs can take engine criticals
----------------

That could work. Something like each slot of an engine destroyed is equal to one heat sink destroyed, or maybe 1 heat sink destroyed + some additional heat added, with the engine (and mech) being destroyed when a certain percent f the engine slots have been? It doesn't sound like something that hard to add to the programing, and it would make both IS and Clan mechs last longer.

Canon was +5 heat per engine critical taken, three criticals lost and you're KIA. That might be a good place to start.

And I think tonnage balancing and not 3/3/3/3 was always the best way to go, and that simply counting Clan 'mechs as slightly heavier would work. Though I'd prefer 10 v 12 because Clans deploy in stars of 5 and IS in lances of 4 (except Comstar, who use 6).

[Vanguard319]

Quaamik, on 07 September 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

from Vanguard319
In regards to balance: engine damage should affect ALL mechs with mobility and heat penalties, regardless of whether they are IS or clan. I can't agree with the improvement to IS heat sink efficiency, Clan weaponry tends to run hotter to begin with, though I agree adding relevant quirks is one of the few good ideas you've had. As for increasing armor, how about looking into breaking up PPFLD like people have been suggesting for the last several months? The last thing this game needs is a Spider with armor to rival an Atlas.
--------------------------

Engine damage already affects IS mechs. If they lose a portion of a torso with engine in it - they die. The issue is, they can choose to use a standard engine - clan mechs cannot. So seriously penalizing the clan mechs for losing a side torso is a killer for them.

IS heat efficiency could be (and should be) changes to IS weapons ghost heat - not to the base efficiency.

As for armor increases, have you noticed that machine guns, that were supposed to be weapons only useful if the armor is already blown off a mech, can kill an assault all by their lonesome? Have you noticed that the only drawback to ballistics (their ammo load) is not a drawback? Most ballistic loaded mechs only run out f ammo if the ammo is destroyed or the match runs very long (or they are bad shots). There is a reason they are the top choice for high damage mechs. Increasing armor values across the board means the guy with all ballistics has to be concerned about running out f ammo before getting 3 kills and 8 assists. It also means a light running 4 - 6 machine guns can't shred an assault before help can even get to it.

In terms of engine damage, they are referring to critical hits to an engine, not engine destruction, so what I said still applies. Increasing armor values does nothing to solve the pinpoint problem, and in case you haven't realized yet, 4~6 MGs can do small amounts of damage to armor, especially if the pilot is exploiting weakened armor sections, so I'm going to call your BS there. The fact remains that the game originated as a board game, and the devs should seriously look at the original TT game, specifically how they balanced weapons, and damage. (And before you ***** about TT rules having no place in this game, the idea of engine damage bringing heat and mobility penalties IS from the original TT rules, as are mech quirks. PGI didn't come up with these on their own.)

Just gonna leave this here in case you want to know why understanding board games can be useful to a developer of video games:

Edited by Vanguard319, 07 September 2014 - 11:36 AM.

[Lazor Sharp]

First,

Need more different kinds of module slots. Like:
Information warfare module slots
Command modules
Motion modules
Many other kinds of slots...


Skill trees on all chassis variants should branch out into a specialty, like scouting,

brawling, sniping, support, light hunter, command mech, and a General Branch that all mech's

will have, etc, etc, etc.......

Each chassis should have a different set of specialty branches from other chassis's


Each variant should have at least 3-4 different specialty branch's to chose from, and each

variant should have at least 1 or 2 different specialty branch's from each other, depending

on the Stock loadout for that variant....
So missile based variant's of the different chassis's get similar quirk's, energy based

variant's of the different chassis's get similar quirks, so ballistic based variant's of the

different chassis's get similar quirk's, but over all, the sets of specialty quirks available,

are very different on each chassis and it's variant's...


You chose 1 specialty branch for that mech, and that mech only, depending on what you want to

do with it, and that branch becomes that Mech's set of quirks......

Each specialty branch would have its own set of unique quirks for each chassis and variant it applys to,

such as getting a extra weapons module slot on the Brawling branch and some other module

slot, along with other buffs. Or a extra Information warfare module slot, and a higher engine

rating or speed boost on a Scout branch, along with other buffs. Or a extra motion module

slot on a sniper branch, etc, etc, etc..... Some branches could add 2 or 3 extra module slots

of various kinds, and other buffs related to that specialization or role....

Then add any of the various modules, that fit a given specialty branch's added module slots,

to make each individual mech load out, even more varied and specialized.......

These options, will allow any Pilot, to tayler any given chassis and variant to his play

style, or needed role on the battle field, and perhaps buff some of the bad variants to the

point of usefulness for a given role....

This is how I envision the skill trees and quirks should be implemented

Edited by Lazor Sharp, 07 September 2014 - 04:14 PM.

[Kirkland Langue]

Want to balance things?

1. IS XL engines should have 6 "overflow" crit slots that can shift between either torso (0+6, 1+5, 2+4, 3+3). If a torso with 3-6 Engine crits is destroyed then the mech is destroyed.
2. Improve IS weapon selection - start with MRMs.

Start with those 2 things - then see how things look.

[Bmetranger]

I do not think a lot of players care about the Nerfing. They just start using more hacks to compensate for the horrible nerfing. Making game play Bad for everyone else. You Know PGI could probably make more money selling the Hacks to MWO, then they do off of MWO.

[Peiper]

Quaamik, on 07 September 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Pieper, I think the issue with counting Clan mechs as higher weight, or using a battle value, is that they can't make it work with the 3/3/3/3 rule they implemented. If thy did, once they separated the Clans and the IS, you could never get a Dire Wolf into games, as the opposite team would have to have 2 Atlases in order for someone to have a Dire Wolf in the game. If a team fielded 3 Stalkers, the Clan team couldn't field 3 heavies unless they counted entire team weigh, and then the numbers start to make it harder and harder to match teams.

That said, maybe the 3/3/3/3 is what needs to go, in favor of a weight balance that counts Clans heavier than they re.

Actually, it WOULD work. Here's how. Let's say an Atlas has a battle value of 100, and a fantastic pilot adding 100 elo points. Matchmaker would match up a Dire Wolf with a BV of 150 and a mediocre pilot of ELO 50 points. That would even out. 200 points each.

I see where you're going with: what if a team has 3 Dire Wolves with FANTASTIC pilots. Well, they might have a long search pattern, searching for other mechs and pilots with the same ELO/Battle Value, but if they're so damned good and they want to play in the public queues, they either have to play mechs with lower BV or endure the long waits and they find other high BV/ELO players. It WOULD work, and clan mechs wouldn't have to be nerfed.

Then, for community warfare, they can do canon style match ups with tonnage vs. tonnage instead of battle value. Example. 500 tons of Clan mechs vs. 800 tons of Inner Sphere mechs. As we'll be in factions, we'll be restricted to certain chassis anyway.

PGI is taking the easiest, and WORST way out of this mess. 'Balancing' mechs instead of thinking outside the box, or putting in the effort to make things better. Perhaps delay this Oberon bullshizzle in order to make your first game work. Do that, and maybe the MWO community would support PGI's second game. (And I don't count MW Tactics as a game.... they should refund all the money to those founders because they invested in garbage.)

PGI, the worst thing you can do is NOTHING, and that's exactly what this 'balancing' stuff is. Nothing. Changing number values because you can't find a way to make things work despite having the knowledge and tools to do it.

Battle Value
Battle Value
Battle Value
- its not just a Battletech thing!

[Malleus011]

If properly coding 10v12 - which is what Clan vs IS fights SHOULD look like - is going to delay CW for months, then maybe you should've release Community Warfare before you attempted Clans?

Yeah, that would've been smart. Finish the missing pillars of the base game, *then* release an entirely new group of factions and technology set.

[Hoax415]

Quaamik, on 07 September 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Pieper, I think the issue with counting Clan mechs as higher weight, or using a battle value, is that they can't make it work with the 3/3/3/3 rule they implemented. If thy did, once they separated the Clans and the IS, you could never get a Dire Wolf into games, as the opposite team would have to have 2 Atlases in order for someone to have a Dire Wolf in the game. If a team fielded 3 Stalkers, the Clan team couldn't field 3 heavies unless they counted entire team weigh, and then the numbers start to make it harder and harder to match teams.

That said, maybe the 3/3/3/3 is what needs to go, in favor of a weight balance that counts Clans heavier than they re.

Its bewildering to me how confusing many forum posters find matchmaking.

Forced 3/3/3/3 matchmaking is never going to create faster matches than the matchmaker just inventing tonnage balanced teams. Even if every single player drives a 100 tonner the matches can be setup quickly.

The forced 3/3/3/3 system falls apart even worse outside of the solo queue. You almost always find 7 or more assaults+heavies on a team in group queue because of the safety overflows and there are almost no medium/light only groups floating around for MM to use.

Not only would using tonnage have little chance of making worse matches. I have heard no evidence presented that MM using tonnage would be slower to create matches.

Also had they used tonnage instead of weight classes, which are horrid and imprecise (a Locust is not a Raven for instance in any sane version of balanced) they could make tweaks like +% or +X to all clan mech tonnage.

Worrying about the poor DWF pilots is crazy. They would just accept that by piloting a DWF you will likely get lighter support mechs. It all balances out in the end.

With 3/3/3/3 and weight class only (the system currently) its crazy to NOT pilot a DWF or at least a DDC if you want to win. Why would you give up tonnage when the MM doesn't award you or your team anything for it?

Edited by Hoax415, 07 September 2014 - 04:27 PM.

[Sam Slade]

This looks to me like another step towards homogenisation; if the tweaks added to IS and Clan mechs aren't very very specific in role definition then this is another step down of one robot one gun Hawken style FPSing.

A good start would be to un-nerf the victor so the IS has a heavy to assault Mech.

Also make jump jets a one time blast that launches you in to the air and saves one quarter of your available fuel for pre-landing feathering. Huge GeForce induced shake, unless you use your landing blast to feather at the peak of a jump... Results massive leg damage. Also huge incentive to take Max JJ's

[Russ Bullock]

Only 20 pages? Okay sorry I'm late to the party but I am going to jump in here:

UBCslayer, on 05 September 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

• Complete IS mech Quirk pass to give more uniqueness and ability when used within their respective roles.

This is the one part of balancing that I hope is done the most efficiently. For example, the Awesome quirks were done well... the Cent, Hunch, and Dragon quirks didn't go nearly far enough.


I think most of the community would prefer that IS mechs be buffed rather than Clan mechs be nerfed.

Well lets keep in mind that many players including myself are very concerned with "average time to death". I personally wish the average lifespan was a little longer. As we have stated many times lots of our design decisions are based on a desired game where players really feel like they are driving a giant stomping mech that can take some abuse and possibly survive a mistake. A more "battle of attrition" feeling is what we and many of our players desire. This has been the basis for most design choices that steered us away from large pin point Alpha's and punching holes through mechs. So I would rather try and keep time to death at least where it is and that means not just buffing up the IS mechs to reach Clans. So the main problem with buffing IS mechs is just that everyone dies faster.

How many of your truly prefer that style of gameplay in MWO? Please I am actually asking.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

• Elo will no longer work with 10 vs 12 team calculations.

Sounds like ELO works now, pretty funny. Remember this when you deploy in a team where half of the people use external camera and start with shooting each other.

• Clan Heat and Movement penalties if a Right or Left torso is destroyed.

Which reminds me it's been TWO years, and we still don't have Engine crits.
And Gyro is not implemented.
Not to mention melee combat. Each time some small light bumps into my leg and stands there, it's awful, as I can't get it with torso weapons and I CAN'T KICK IT from my heart.

[Russ Bullock]

Hillslam, on 05 September 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

I like it. Open honest straight to the point. Also REMINDING everyone that their clan gear was not going to be more powerful only different and that you told everyone that more than a YEAR ago helps sooth the butthurt of those with selective hearing.

Some people need constant reminding.

PS: add a road cone cockpit item (shameless request)

Well I thanks for remembering that we did indeed state this was our direction. We stated it well out in front because we knew how passionate the subject was going to be and will always be. People love their clan mechs and past MW games did us no favors in setting the precedent include BT tabletop ( just ask Catalyst they would agree ).

But were still committed to keeping them very unique and VERY powerful. We just need to make it so IS can compete if they play them right.

[Russ Bullock]

Kirtanus, on 05 September 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

I'm OK with this plan for now...

Thanks. I want to encourage this approach. Even those that might say take your time to do 10v12 need to remember there are just as many saying CW before anything else. This feels like the best approach to get CW out this year and to really fulfill the original vision. Then we can see where were at and decide on what to do next.