876 replies to this topic

[cleghorn6]

Russ Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 10:28 PM, said:

These sorts of quotes can be very frustrating because we care very deeply about our customers and want to keep them, of course. But we also feel like we delivered exactly what we promised and the team did an amazing job of it. They look and feel awesome. And please read the initial posts that we linked, these Clan mechs were defined long before anyone bought one. There still absolutely amazing.

Just to represent a positive view I think you're doing an awesome job. Balancing a game like this isn't easy and I understand that you're not going to get it right first time, 100% of the time. There are plenty of people on here and a majority of players I know who don't come near the forums all of whom love the game, what you've done with it so far and where you're headed.

Don't let the haters get you down. Good job.

[Malleus011]

Russ Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

Go ahead and throw me an example of how your not listened to and I will look to let you know if I agree or why you might feel that way.

Russ,

This is a pretty big issue, and probably could use it's own discussion topic sometime when you guys have the time to really hang out on the forums and talk with your community. I can't count the number of times I've read an interesting feedback thread, clever suggestion, or feedback that overwhelmingly disapproves of something, and there just isn't a response from PGI at all. Eventually, you just stop posting ideas or feedback, because it feels futile; like we're attempting to communicate but nobody's listening.

There are the 'Great Idea' threads, like this one:

http://mwomercs.com/...pillars-of-mwo/

Which actually got a nod from Bryan early on ... and then went silent for months. These are *good* ideas that would really improve the game. They shouldn't be all *that* complicated to implement. This is an example of a dropped communication; the community seems to really like this idea, and Bryan seemed positive ... but we hear nothing from you guys. This post was back in May.

Next - let's take the recent PPC/Gauss desync issue. If you read that thread, I don't think you can take a way a sense that the community was pleased with *either* option. Despite all the feedback, however, one of the undesirable options was implemented anyway. That kind of action makes the developer seem deaf to feedback; it's like we're posting but you're ignoring us.

And it's not just that; Ghost heat is widely hated (and not even close to Canon) and threads surface regularly with ideas to remove and replace it. Ideas for fixing Pin-Point, ideas for fixing Front loaded damage, even ideas for helping to monetize extra features ... and it feels like most of it is wasted, unheard and unread. We don't post ideas to annoy the devs, but because we feel like the game *should* be great, and we'd like to help it get there.

Finally, I get that you guys are trying to please a large audience. Communication like you did in this thread - time consuming as it was - helps a lot. We may not always agree with the solutions PGI chooses, but coming onto the boards and actually *discussing* it with your community does help - a lot. Even if we don't agree with the direction, at least we feel like our objections have been noted and there's still a chance that the game might change direction in a future path. (For example, I'd like to see Engine Crits and 10v12 with tonnage matching instead of 3/3/3/3 12v12. Posting something like "I hear you guys, and I'd like that too, and we'll make a best effort to revisit that after CW phase X." always helps).

Side note: Since nobody else mentioned it - most of the IS faction pilots I know aren't concerned with piloting 'inferior' mechs. If we're outnumbered by the Clans, we expect our 'mechs to be slightly less awesome on a ton-for-ton basis. So long as the quality gap isn't *huge* (T1 vs. Clans is quite punishing, BTW) we'll cope, and take pride in beating 'superior' machines. People like being the underdog, too.

Second side note: Stock Mech Mondays do have *much* lower rates of fire and TTK. Our SHS just won't allow us to deliver high alphas or rapid-fire weapons. Despite that extreme limitation, everybody who joins us seems to have a ball. We balance weight by tonnage, medium 'mechs are common, lights don't die if somebody looks at them, and an Atlas is an absolute fearsome juggernaut that takes a lot of time and effort to bring down. The mechs are slow. The rate of fire is slow. It isn't perfect, but the less frantic gameplay *feels* much more like giant armored Battlemechs slugging it out.

[Xarian]

I don't mind balance changes at all, even ones that occasionally miss the mark (small laser nerfs, pulse laser nerfs).

What I do mind is when these changes get put on PTS, the entire community says "these changes are horrible!" and then they get implemented verbatim. All this behavior does is alienate the community and show us that ye olde devs are not listening and don't care about feedback.

Do you have any idea how many people were happy that you (i.e. Russ) got the Ghost Heat limit nerf on the cERLLs reversed so fast? People suddenly started feeling like their feedback was valuable.

[wanderer]

I am somewhat disappointed.

First, there's a half-fix with clan XL's.

Yes,they should be pumping out extra heat when they lose a side torso. However, this should be part of damaging ANY engine in MWO. Set an engine to X hit points.

At 1/3 of that, it kicks out .5 heat/sec extra. At 2/3, 1 heat/sec extra. Obviously, dead engine is dead.

You don't need a movement penalty for engine damage. You need a movement penalty for heat.. A 'Mech that heats up should become less and less responsive and lose speed, duplicating the TT's effects in terms of marching a 'Mech up the heat scale.

Heat is the control element of Battletech. With Clan 'Mechs suffering the actual heat problems for engine damage like they should and an actual, proper heat penalty being in the game, you would have your balance. Simply slapping it in for losing a side torso on a Clan XL misses most of the point. With proper heat penalties in play, you have a standard for -everyone- to balance on.

And speaking of balance- just stop with the 12v12 as you have it. Stop trying to 1:1 balance Clan to IS. World of Tanks had the right idea here- put them on tiers. Splitting the current crop of chassis from 1 (lightest of light IS designs like the Locust/Commando) through 6 (Dire Wolf and possibly Warhawk) instead of arbitrarily attempting to slap them into L/M/H/A would go a long way. We already had this issue with Locusts slotting in vs. Jenners/Firestarters, and things need to change. This also means you do NOT have to 1:1 balance by weight- if Clanners are,say "Tier 2-6" and IS "Tier 1-5", you've got your balancing option that doesn't rely on overly gutting Clan designs in a misguided attempt at a lowest common denominator.

[cSand]

Russ Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

For Christmas? probably not I have the guys pretty much completely tapped out making some other cool new mechs. Let you guys know about that pretty soon.

Acceptable!!

I also like how you it almost sounded like you would actually do a Urbanmech if you had the manpower at the moment

Edited by cSand, 08 September 2014 - 07:50 AM.

[SaltBeef]

I think russ already addressed this!
The side torso thingy more TT rules is OK. Speed was not affected heat was.

Edited by SaltBeef, 08 September 2014 - 07:54 AM.

[Peter von Schleier]

I am normally a read only user, but i want to stick my head in and say i highly appreaciate that an actual discussion is taking place and questions are answered.

I might not like some of it (dang i want 10 vs 12 to show those pesky clanners what Steiner can do), but cudos for answering so much in this thread.

[Blacksoul1987]

Malleus011, on 08 September 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

Russ,

This is a pretty big issue, and probably could use it's own discussion topic sometime when you guys have the time to really hang out on the forums and talk with your community. I can't count the number of times I've read an interesting feedback thread, clever suggestion, or feedback that overwhelmingly disapproves of something, and there just isn't a response from PGI at all. Eventually, you just stop posting ideas or feedback, because it feels futile; like we're attempting to communicate but nobody's listening.

There are the 'Great Idea' threads, like this one:

http://mwomercs.com/...pillars-of-mwo/

Which actually got a nod from Bryan early on ... and then went silent for months. These are *good* ideas that would really improve the game. They shouldn't be all *that* complicated to implement. This is an example of a dropped communication; the community seems to really like this idea, and Bryan seemed positive ... but we hear nothing from you guys. This post was back in May.

Next - let's take the recent PPC/Gauss desync issue. If you read that thread, I don't think you can take a way a sense that the community was pleased with *either* option. Despite all the feedback, however, one of the undesirable options was implemented anyway. That kind of action makes the developer seem deaf to feedback; it's like we're posting but you're ignoring us.

And it's not just that; Ghost heat is widely hated (and not even close to Canon) and threads surface regularly with ideas to remove and replace it. Ideas for fixing Pin-Point, ideas for fixing Front loaded damage, even ideas for helping to monetize extra features ... and it feels like most of it is wasted, unheard and unread. We don't post ideas to annoy the devs, but because we feel like the game *should* be great, and we'd like to help it get there.

Finally, I get that you guys are trying to please a large audience. Communication like you did in this thread - time consuming as it was - helps a lot. We may not always agree with the solutions PGI chooses, but coming onto the boards and actually *discussing* it with your community does help - a lot. Even if we don't agree with the direction, at least we feel like our objections have been noted and there's still a chance that the game might change direction in a future path. (For example, I'd like to see Engine Crits and 10v12 with tonnage matching instead of 3/3/3/3 12v12. Posting something like "I hear you guys, and I'd like that too, and we'll make a best effort to revisit that after CW phase X." always helps).

Side note: Since nobody else mentioned it - most of the IS faction pilots I know aren't concerned with piloting 'inferior' mechs. If we're outnumbered by the Clans, we expect our 'mechs to be slightly less awesome on a ton-for-ton basis. So long as the quality gap isn't *huge* (T1 vs. Clans is quite punishing, BTW) we'll cope, and take pride in beating 'superior' machines. People like being the underdog, too.

Second side note: Stock Mech Mondays do have *much* lower rates of fire and TTK. Our SHS just won't allow us to deliver high alphas or rapid-fire weapons. Despite that extreme limitation, everybody who joins us seems to have a ball. We balance weight by tonnage, medium 'mechs are common, lights don't die if somebody looks at them, and an Atlas is an absolute fearsome juggernaut that takes a lot of time and effort to bring down. The mechs are slow. The rate of fire is slow. It isn't perfect, but the less frantic gameplay *feels* much more like giant armored Battlemechs slugging it out.

on the gauss PPC desync many of us would have liked to see a cooldown increase on the PPC along with maybe a much smaller velocity decrease. I don't mind PPC's the way they are right now as they are still very useful but I would have preferred that they stay as a sniper weapon.

And as far as ghost heat is concerned I would love to see it replaced with one of Homeless Bill's suggestions.

I however don't really like the idea of 10v12. I won't quit playing if it gets implemented but I will not purchase any more IS mechs and I will be playing on the clan side. It is much preferable to me to be given more individual power and have to rely less on teammates.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

Wow. Complete bullshit. You just again and again proove that you don't have a ******* clue of how to make this game. I'll be happy to start telling about your incompetence in game making at this .. how is it called .. "Universe-to-explore"-forums again and again.

[Blacksoul1987]

wanderer, on 08 September 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

I am somewhat disappointed.

First, there's a half-fix with clan XL's.

Yes,they should be pumping out extra heat when they lose a side torso. However, this should be part of damaging ANY engine in MWO. Set an engine to X hit points.

At 1/3 of that, it kicks out .5 heat/sec extra. At 2/3, 1 heat/sec extra. Obviously, dead engine is dead.

You don't need a movement penalty for engine damage. You need a movement penalty for heat.. A 'Mech that heats up should become less and less responsive and lose speed, duplicating the TT's effects in terms of marching a 'Mech up the heat scale.

Heat is the control element of Battletech. With Clan 'Mechs suffering the actual heat problems for engine damage like they should and an actual, proper heat penalty being in the game, you would have your balance. Simply slapping it in for losing a side torso on a Clan XL misses most of the point. With proper heat penalties in play, you have a standard for -everyone- to balance on.

And speaking of balance- just stop with the 12v12 as you have it. Stop trying to 1:1 balance Clan to IS. World of Tanks had the right idea here- put them on tiers. Splitting the current crop of chassis from 1 (lightest of light IS designs like the Locust/Commando) through 6 (Dire Wolf and possibly Warhawk) instead of arbitrarily attempting to slap them into L/M/H/A would go a long way. We already had this issue with Locusts slotting in vs. Jenners/Firestarters, and things need to change. This also means you do NOT have to 1:1 balance by weight- if Clanners are,say "Tier 2-6" and IS "Tier 1-5", you've got your balancing option that doesn't rely on overly gutting Clan designs in a misguided attempt at a lowest common denominator.

I would love to see heat penalties in game. If we keep the rising threshold then heat penalties are an absolute must. The idea of tiers has some merit as well.

[FoXabre]

Cabal668, on 08 September 2014 - 12:43 AM, said:

Wh don't you use Battlevalue (BV) for balancing as it is in the Tabletop. When you use a meta build Clanmech you have very high BV and have to face much higher tonnage of IS mechs in return to get the same BV.
For example a Timberwolf has a BV of 2500 and the Atlas around 1600 so you have a Atlas + another mech to fill the same amount of BV. This doesn't mean the other team has to have more mechs but the team with the Timberwolf has less BV left and has to be filled with weaker mechs.
Maybe this is a chance not to have a team of full meta against a team of casual players with more or less stock loadout.
I hope you can get the point.
If this happens it is absolutely possible to have the clanmechs as they are in the tabletop. They ARE stronger, much stronger but you can only put less tonnage into game because of the high BV. This is also realistic because the clans usually fight with the smallest amount of mech or lightest mechs as they try to show how good they are in fighting even stronger enemys.

So in short:
-Battlevalue for each mech and each equipment as in the normal tabletop rules
-balancing along the BV not tonnage
-same amount of mechs on each side but balanced with the BV, so different tonnage per side possible
-IS vs Clan then gives 12 vs 12 matches but with strong tonnage difference
-Weapons can be balanced by increasing or decreasing their BV
-makes standard heatsinks a new option to lower BV
-XL engines have way higher BV so standard engine is a good option
-Gauss + other weapons meta would be very expensive in BV so only few of them per team
-Jumpjet sniper have high BV and you have less per team
-ECM + ER LL + XL engine Spider would be quite high in BV so it enters less often in battles

So a short list of pros and cons:

pro:
+better balancing
+weapons can be balanced only by BV not the stats
+stock loadouts have a advantage
+weaker mechs have a higher playability due to low BV
+Meta builds can be balanced by BV ( for example PPC+AC5 gives a BV penalty)
+more teamplay needed when a strong mech is on one team while other only have average ones
+Less high BV mechs per battle

Cons:
-one or two strong mechs may appear in match with the rest of normal and weaker mechs
-still strong builds possible
-can effect matching time
-meta players will whine due to cap of BV so not all in a squad may play a meta

Sorry for my bad english but i hope you get the point

P.S.: If you have more pros and cons just tell them to me or write your opinion on this.

I entirely agree with this system. They way I see it is that this can easily help regulate the quality of matches. The BV can be tailored on a per variant basis depending on things like hardpoints, quirks, tonnage, and even as far as ease of use or potential for meta use.

If a change is made to a certain weapon that makes it or certain Mechs that use it very OP, adjust the BV to compensate. BV can also be used to compensate for ELO differences or be used in the case where group and PUG queues are joined (not that I'm saying it should happen). A team would get a BV modifier (greater efficiency due to teamwork) which would allow the opposing team (that may not have a group of players) to have stronger Mechs.

We can also get rid of the 3/3/3/3 system and tonnage based match making to allow for interesting compositions of teams again. We could see teams of lights vs teams of assaults, etc all matched evenly using the BV system to compensate for advantages in each area.

[wanderer]

Not to mention that heat penalties inherently increase time-to-kill, but instead of being a kludge like ghost heat, it's a player-controlled option.

You want to blast someone when that 80% heat load literally grinds your assault speed to a crawl an Urbanmech could outrun and your tracking becomes a jagged, tortured targeting process that the Atlas you were shooting at moves out of the way quicker than you can traverse the sights? Go ahead. Gamble.

Mind you, you'd have to hit roughly that to immobilize the slowest stock 'Mechs in the game (83% overheat is enough movement penalty to match a tweaked Dire Wolf's speed.), and you can cap it at "legged" kph (15) for severe overheating so someone doesn't just melt stuck in lava.

As it stands, heat only matters at 100%. This has been a balance issue since closed beta. Clan XL's lacking any heat penalties only brings it front and center.

[StonedDead]

I could go with 12v12. I want 12v10, but didn't have a problem fighting them 12v12 before the nerfs. I wanted to see it due to lore.

You need to nerf the nerfs, Clans should be slightly OP, please don't make them worse than the IS mechs. I'll be playing CW(if we ever get it) from an IS cockpit.

Playing against a tough, or tougher, opponent only makes you a better player in the long run. Sure, you die a lot. You'll get used to it.

Edit: Oh, and as for mech heat penalties (getting sluggish/slow, electronics problems, weapon alignment, ect)), YES. On all mechs. Worse with damage too please.

Edited by Zekester81, 08 September 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Tanreh]

Lily from animove, on 08 September 2014 - 12:40 AM, said:

[...]
simple example:

lets say we would create wepaon groups, for small wepaos and big weapons and Supersize weapons.
small weapons count 1 point.
big wepaons count 2 points.
Supersize wepaons 3 points.
Maybe exclude flamers and MG's from this and give them 0 points.

example Small and medium lasers, AC's up to 5 are small. up to LRM 10.
Gauss + AC 20 are supersize.
rest is big weapons.

Now everyone can shoot up to "6 points of wepaons" simultaneausly....
[...]

Now this is one of the ideas (brilliant in my mind, great potential at least) which should be taken a closer look at.
It is sad that many of those ideas exist on this forum and only a very few to none are regarded by the developers (or at least this is my impression)

[Tanreh]

Zekester81, on 08 September 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

I could go with 12v12. I want 12v10, but didn't have a problem fighting them 12v12 before the nerfs. I wanted to see it due to lore.

You need to nerf the nerfs, Clans should be slightly OP, please don't make them worse than the IS mechs. I'll be playing CW(if we ever get it) from an IS cockpit.

Playing against a tough, or tougher, opponent only makes you a better player in the long run. Sure, you die a lot. You'll get used to it.

Edit: Oh, and as for mech heat penalties (getting sluggish/slow, electronics problems, weapon alignment, ect)), YES. On all mechs. Worse with damage too please.

Hmm, I disagree strongly.

I want to play Battletech

part of Battletech is 10vs12
part of Battletech is superior Clan mechs
part of Battletech is IS group tactics and Clan single target philosophy

If much more people want to play Clan mechs.....let then wait longer as the queues are for 10vs12 If there are 50 people wanting to play Clan and 30 playing IS...well the IS people can play constantly...the Clan people have to wait.

If a Clan mech is shooting at a target within 1 second of another mech first...deduct Cbills and XP from him. He is breaking his philosophy

If you want to make IS and Clanmechs *comparable* in the initial states of The Invasion...don't call this game Mechwarrior or Battletech....it is NOT because than your are only by name siphoning from an IP. Most of the people know the history of the invasion and by shifting/nerfing/manipulating the superiority of the Clans---you are rewriting the canon.

If you want IS and Clan Mechs to be equal (and don't want to integrate 10vs12), you shouldn't have started with IS mechs pre3055 in the first place. Everybody firm in Battletech lore could have told you years before.

If you now say 10vs12 is too much work and too hard to implement...I feel kind of betrayed because you used all the other Battletech elements are advertising elements...but now you are changing key systems because they are complicated.

I think the last points may be critical in understanding the amount of disappointed players who are searching for a *lore-true* Battletech/Mechwarrior game

I also want to point out that in my estimation many people would like to play both sides. It is easier and perhaps in the short time more rewarding playing the better mech (Clan) but it would be also a challenge to play the IS side to get a kick from the game. Otherwise I don't think people would play expereinced or champion settings in a lot of games...everybody would go newbie level in difficulty settings because it is easier...but some people want to have a challenge to say ..'I achieved victory against overwhelming odds (A common practice for nearly every great action movie I ever saw ... or did you saw a martial arts movie in which Jacky Chan or Jet Li or vanDamme did just fight a single inferior foe? How many Schwarzenegger movies are out there where he fights only one enemy? [Aside fromPredator...but I think we can imagine Arnie being and IS mech here and the Predator being Clan?) Which side would you choose? The hero at the end?

Edited by Tanreh, 08 September 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Haydin]

100% behind these ideas. A lot will depend on their implementation of course, but the overall plan sounds good!

[stjobe]

Tanreh, on 08 September 2014 - 10:02 AM, said:

If you want IS and Clan Mechs to be equal (and don't want to integrate 10vs12), you shouldn't have started with IS mechs pre3055 in the first place. Everybody firm in Battletech lore could have told you years before.

It's not like we didn't.

Much like every other feedback to a certain trio, it was, and continues to be, ignored.

Edited by stjobe, 08 September 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[XX Sulla XX]

Lots of talk about 10vs12 but I know a lot of us do not care that much about that aspect of lore. Nor do we think 10vs12 will ever balance out right. So no do not get in a hurry to try and make 10vs12 work. I would much rather have CW etc first.

[Darth Futuza]

Can medium pulse lasers get some of their range back, please? 300m is...lame.

[HammerMaster]

What I think? HA! Ready?
10v12? Wrong!
It doesn't work because of your poor peforming matchmaking system and non use of Battlevalue or tonnage matching. So rather than back to the drawing board for something that works and is CANON. The answer is "NO". Unacceptable.

Balancing plan?
Clan heat and movement penalties if a right or left torso is damaged. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait wait wait. This was in the books YEARS ago and should have been introduced in the beginning. Even IS mechs with an engine hit crit should suffer this.
Small increase in IS mech heat efficiency....well. We'll see.
Complete IS quirk pass. Ok. Cool We'll see.
Increase in IS and Clan mech armor and internals for TTD......um. Two words: Stock Matchs. Genie is out of the bottle on this. YOUR meta and champions created this mess. Had machines been stock only with much less weapons customaztions and keep unlimited visual customiztion. Well we would not be in this mess.
I am very disappointed.