876 replies to this topic

[Osric Lancaster]

Dracol, on 08 September 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

and 10 v 12 is not the answer for any problem in a multi-player game

[/size]
Who in their right mind then would pilot a blackjack? That is the crux of the problem. You make one side better then the other and no one plays the weaker side.

Because your blackjack isn't getting paired off against a Nova or Stormcrow in that scenario, (like it is now) it's getting matched against 7/9ths of a Kitfox. Saying "Clan Tech must be equal to IS because otherwise no one will pilot IS" is like saying "Medium 'Mechs must be equal to assault 'Mechs otherwise no one will take mediums".

And for the record, I pilot IS.

Solis Obscuri, on 08 September 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Per Lore the Clans did, after all, focus on honing the mechwarrior to being a perfect weapon on the battlefield, not just stuffing a collection of inbred vatjob scrubs into advanced military technology that would do all the work for them.

I'm all for less pinpoint damage and I don't entirely dislike the approach to clan tech. I've had a Daishi drill through my Jagger in a split second though so time to kill is of course still an issue with the DPS you can fit into some rigs clan or IS. It'd be nice if they could make convergence delay an actual thing, that skill's been a dead XP sink for how many years?

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 08 September 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[Pezzer]

Reducing max clan Mech armor would help contribute to overall balance. Most Clan mechs are supposed to have less armor-per-ton than thier IS counterparts. The DWF is not supposed to have the same amount of armor as an Atlas, the Nova a Hunchback, etc.

Kit Fox and a few other Mechs are notable exceptions, however. KFX is, in lore, a higher-armor lower-speed long-range Light mech. I think the Adder was supposed to behave in the same way, as well? Either way, would be nice to see a change in max armor for the Clans.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Russ Bullock, on 07 September 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

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

First ... Thank you very much for weighing in ... it is sincerely appreciated.

Quote

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.

BattleTech is a game of positioning ... positioning your forces to maximize their effectiveness while minimizing your opponents' effectiveness.

I want a well-built and well-piloted mech designed to scout, brawl, skirmish, fire support, snipe, etc. to be able to do it when placed in the right position. The problems comes when:
- doing something well (scouting, for example) is unrewarded, or
- one particular combination (jump sniping, for example) is uncontested in almost any situation

Note how this past weekend in the Lance Challenge, scouting / info tools (NARC and TAG) were rewarded ... in order to capitalize on that many, many people brought fire support or sniping 'mechs. I counted ten on my side alone in one match after my brawler Atlas died in a horrible, glorious ball of fire because I was too stubborn to realize that I would have been more useful being a 100-ton ECM support/rear area guard 'mech than a front line brawler in that particular case.

I have loved the challenge so far, except for the NARC/TAG rewards and the subsequent LRMs ... (hmm, I'm rambling)

I guess my point is, no one valid tactic or play style should be rewarded more or be automatically be more effective than any other ... that should include choice of faction.

I would strongly prefer that one-shot-kills be kept to a minimum, either very lucky (holy crap! did I just headshot that guy? snap-shot moments) or high skill and high risk (the "suicide" 2x Gauss, 2x PPC CTF-3D comes to mind) ... but now, 50 point alphas are laughable in the face of a Dire Wolf or Timber Wolf ... with significantly less risk.

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.

If you really want to open this can of worms (and it's a big frakkin' can), I recommend a Command Chair post. A lot of these issues are very old and the anger runs very deep. Bring your nomex long johns, because the fire storm will be massive. In the long run, however, an honest and open dialog about past issues would probably be a very good thing, especially if you want to try to rebuild some trust.

[Solis Obscuri]

Osric Lancaster, on 08 September 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

It'd be nice if they could make convergence delay an actual thing, that skill's been a dead XP sink for how many years?

Yes, it really, really, really would!

[Dracol]

Osric Lancaster, on 08 September 2014 - 05:59 PM, said:

Because your blackjack isn't getting paired off against a Nova or Stormcrow in that scenario, (like it is now) it's getting matched against 7/9ths of a Kitfox. Saying "Clan Tech must be equal to IS because otherwise no one will pilot IS" is like saying "Medium 'Mechs must be equal to assault 'Mechs otherwise no one will take mediums".

And for the record, I pilot IS.



I'm all for less pinpoint damage and I don't entirely dislike the approach to clan tech. I've had a Daishi drill through my Jagger in a split second though so time to kill is of course still an issue with the DPS you can fit into some rigs clan or IS. It'd be nice if they could make convergence delay an actual thing, that skill's been a dead XP sink for how many years?

First off, you align with Rasalhague so you are just a gluten for punishment

About your point were a BlackJack wouldn't be matched against an equal tonnage mech. Its about perception. Compare a IS 50 and a Clan 50, people will choose the Clan in your scenario. Tell em all you want they will be matched against less tonnage, Apples to Apples... or actually tonnage to tonnage, and the majority will only look at the big numbers and what they see is a IS mech is less effective then a Clan mech of equal tonnage, and they will choose clan.

[Tanreh]

Pezzer, on 08 September 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Reducing max clan Mech armor would help contribute to overall balance. Most Clan mechs are supposed to have less armor-per-ton than thier IS counterparts. The DWF is not supposed to have the same amount of armor as an Atlas, the Nova a Hunchback, etc.

Kit Fox and a few other Mechs are notable exceptions, however. KFX is, in lore, a higher-armor lower-speed long-range Light mech. I think the Adder was supposed to behave in the same way, as well? Either way, would be nice to see a change in max armor for the Clans.

Ah..BattleTech Technical readout 3050

Atlas : armor factor 304
Daishi: armor factor 304

Hunchback armor factor 160
Blackhawk armor factor 160

I did not study mathematics...I only have a master in engineering...so please explain to me why 304 is supposed to be higher than 304....the same with 160.

Sorry for the sarcasm but I am not really happy about people being TOO free with announcing *facts*

[Osric Lancaster]

Dracol, on 08 September 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:

First off, you align with Rasalhague so you are just a gluten for punishment

Ain't it the truth.

[Angry Kylo Ren]

I'm ok with the clan changes so far, as an exclusively clan pilot. The ONLY clan weapon I feel lacking right now is the PPC - similar to the IS one, which is also suffering.

Both of them need a speed bump - maybe half the difference between now and what they were before.

[KursedVixen]

Pezzer, on 08 September 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Reducing max clan Mech armor would help contribute to overall balance. Most Clan mechs are supposed to have less armor-per-ton than thier IS counterparts. The DWF is not supposed to have the same amount of armor as an Atlas, the Nova a Hunchback, etc.

Kit Fox and a few other Mechs are notable exceptions, however. KFX is, in lore, a higher-armor lower-speed long-range Light mech. I think the Adder was supposed to behave in the same way, as well? Either way, would be nice to see a change in max armor for the Clans.

Clan armor is generally better so they need less of it for the same protection right now I think clan ferro gives more protection than is still armor does not matter if you have 4-12 enemy mechs pounding on your own.

I really think ghost heat in general should be removed. Clan heat sinks are better at dissipating the high heat of their weapons that and they have pilots bred for this ,but we are not vat grown trueborn clan warriors so I think we should not have to deal with this imaginary heat called ghost heat for clan or is mechs.

Also instead of making the PPC a large AC5 just reduce the max range if you do not want it to be a long long range weapon instead of making illogical reductions in the speed of the PPC projectile that is man made lightning.

Edited by KursedVixen, 09 September 2014 - 08:19 AM.

[stjobe]

Dracol, on 08 September 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

Who in their right mind then would pilot a blackjack? That is the crux of the problem. You make one side better then the other and no one plays the weaker side.

The whole point of 10 v 12 is that Clans are better, so IS needs 2 more 'mechs to not be weaker.

And the whole point of a BV system is to make sure no side is weaker than the other, no matter how many 'mechs are on either side.

It's team balancing, not individual 'mech balancing.

Sure, your Blackjack may be inferior to whichever Clan 'mech you happen upon, but your two extra buddies makes that a 3-on-1 and guess who's weaker then?

I'm a die-hard IS pilot (my BattleTech Universe doesn't even have Clans - never cared a whit for them) and to my mind 10 v 12 is just dandy. Let them have their cheeze; if we get superior numbers we'll kick them and their vat-born xenophobism right out of the Inner Sphere again.

[Dracol]

stjobe, on 09 September 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

The whole point of 10 v 12 is that Clans are better, so IS needs 2 more 'mechs to not be weaker.

And the whole point of a BV system is to make sure no side is weaker than the other, no matter how many 'mechs are on either side.

It's team balancing, not individual 'mech balancing.

Sure, your Blackjack may be inferior to whichever Clan 'mech you happen upon, but your two extra buddies makes that a 3-on-1 and guess who's weaker then?

I'm a die-hard IS pilot (my BattleTech Universe doesn't even have Clans - never cared a whit for them) and to my mind 10 v 12 is just dandy. Let them have their cheeze; if we get superior numbers we'll kick them and their vat-born xenophobism right out of the Inner Sphere again.

And the whole point I'm trying to make is, if 10 v 12 were utilized and Clan mechs were better, human nature would have majority of players choosing Clans. Only new players and a few hardcore fluff centric players would play IS. That type of player composition would not make for a successful game.

Fluff is a fine and dandy, but it needs to be put aside when it comes to making a viable PC game. You maybe fine with it, but rest assured the average customer of PGI would not be.

Edited to add this: Team balance takes place after a person chooses which mech to add to their hanger. When people are looking to purchase something they compare it to the other selections available. So, you compare two 50 ton mechs, one clan one IS, what would the average person buy if the clan 50 tonner is more powerful? The clan.

Edited by Dracol, 09 September 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[jackal40]

Qualifyers: I've not finished all the books, I've only played TT a couple of times, and I've only played some of the previous MechWarrior computer games briefly. I was brought into MWO by an avid TT fan.

That being said I feel there are two significant flaws with MWO at this momement.

First: Accuracy in MWO does not reflect either the books or TT. IMO, this is due to pin point convergence.

Second: Heat in MWO does not reflect either the books or TT.

For MWO to succed, I feel these two issues MUST be corrected before any additional balancing takes place. When these two items are fixed every weapon will need to be rebalanced and the decision will need to be made as to how much better Clan weapons are over their IS counterparts. In addition, match making will need to be readdressed. If some sort of Clan vs IS matchup is not implemented then there must be some sort of battle value used to even up the teams.

As it stands right now, MWO does not appeal to me - I want to feel like I'm involved in the Clan invasion, or as a part of Task Force Serpent attacking Huntress. Currently, that feeling does not exist and as the announced changes will not do anything to bring that feeling to MWO.

Honestly, the "Call of Duty" comment by Russ leads me to believe MWO will continue to diverge from the BattleTech universe and I will not continue to play that kind of MWO.

[Hoax415]

Dracol, on 09 September 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

And the whole point I'm trying to make is, if 10 v 12 were utilized and Clan mechs were better, human nature would have majority of players choosing Clans.

You are wrong.

People didn't pick factions in Planetside like that. People didn't pick factions in DAOC like that. People don't pick which colors they play in mtg like that.

Do some people only pick the strongest thing available no matter what? Yes they do.

Do other people refuse to pick the strongest thing available? Yes they do.

Do another group of people just refuse to pick the most popular thing ignoring how strong or weak it is? Yes of course.

Human psychology is way too complex for you to use it as the end all be all for why 10v12 is a failed idea.

Here's why 12v12 is a failed idea, no human psychology required:
-They cannot balance clan mechs with IS without changing clan mechs. You cannot balance mechs that have Endo+FF and mechs that do not with IS 1:1 at the same time. Either the Mad Cat will be too strong or the Summoner too weak because of this. Period. Point blank. Look at the numbers. Look at the facts. To hell with human psychology.

This means that PGI has 3 choices:
-Do nothing and the balance will be poor.

-Stop the clan nerfs here, give Endo+FF clan mechs the Victor treatment to bring them into line.

-Nerf until Endo+FF are balanced (we are not there yet), then give Clan mechs with no Endo or FF positive tweaks to catch them up to IS mechs and the rest of the Clan chassis.

Edited by Hoax415, 09 September 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[Dracol]

Hoax415, on 09 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

-snip-

Let me ask you this. Can you provide an example of a successful game, built solely around multiplayer, has no respawns, and has a faction that is inherently better then the opposition in a 1 v 1 against equal tiered equipment?

Hoax415, on 09 September 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

Here's why 12v12 is a failed idea, no human psychology required:
-They cannot balance clan mechs with IS without changing clan mechs. You cannot balance mechs that have Endo+FF and mechs that do not with IS 1:1 at the same time. Either the Mad Cat will be too strong or the Summoner too weak because of this. Period. Point blank. Look at the numbers. Look at the facts. To hell with human psychology.

This means that PGI has 3 choices:
-Do nothing and the balance will be poor.

-Stop the clan nerfs here, give Endo+FF clan mechs the Victor treatment to bring them into line.

-Nerf until Endo+FF are balanced (we are not there yet), then give Clan mechs with no Endo or FF positive tweaks to catch them up to IS mechs and the rest of the Clan chassis.

One other thing, please clarify your position. Should MW:O stick closer to TT fluff / rules or less?
Cause in one line you are saying 10 v 12 should be in place cause BTech and clans won't need to change. And in the next line you are saying Endo + FF should be balanced when FF has always been the second weight savings upgrade in Btech rules, never even close to being equal to endo.

[Malleus011]

And since PGI seems to be turning over a new leaf ... I've dusted off my cynicism and made a few suggestions, detailed here:

Comments are appreciated.

http://mwomercs.com/...ce-suggestions/

http://mwomercs.com/...big-difference/

http://mwomercs.com/...dules-and-soul/

So there's that.

[Phoebe]

Ok you are basically going to nerf clan mechs until they are the same as IS with a different feel, completly ruining the lore of the battletech universe where clan mechs were much stronger than IS.
Ok I respect you decision considering the motivations are fair enough, but I don't like the direction that is taking the game and you won't see an euro from me anymore. I'll still play until get tired, hope the cw will give back some more fun...

[Ahja]

Well the slight of hand trick did not work on me. Now this is the biggest problem you have to solve PGI and it seems how you do that will determine how well the next few months will be for you. So stop inventing things to cover over broken game mechanics that are dominating play and Just replace what is broken. Also stop Balancing everything!!!!

[Ace Goodfighter]

In the lore clanners were always more powerful (techwise) however after many battles the inner sphere starts to reverse engineer clan tech coming up with lighter more powerful versions of IS tech and eventually omnipods and such. Since the availability of clan mechs for cbills has started to roll out why not incorporate some clan tech onto IS mechs? Retrofitting so to speak thereby keeping both early clan adopters happy by not NERFing their gear, but also IS grinders who just want to win more regularly.

[Loganauer]

UI redesign: You guys can manage that and I'm sure that wouldn't be a HUGE effort to do.
Tiebreakers: Modify cbill reward so ties reward both teams, just not as much as a win.
Matchmaker issues: Redesign to fit a battlevalue system, change elo into pilot skill that is a battlevalue of its own.
'Mech tonnage issue: See above
Elo no longer working: See above


UI redesign (more like slight adjustment) should take maybe a week of work, tiebreaker is just moving numbers around, and the matchmaker should take 1 or 2 weeks, and I imagine different people would work on that than UI. I'm okay with CW being pushed back 2 weeks if it means we have balanced matches with the clans. They're going to dominate no matter what because they're faster, more heat efficient, and carry more weapons. You -CAN- make 10v12 work and it'd build a fairer game.

To prevent everyone from going clans, Repair and rearm can be more expensive, 'mechs can be more expensive, require a special purchase or leveling unlock to pilot clan 'mechs, use cbill reward to encourage people to play IS, require clanners to adhere to a zellbrigen metagame, and/or offer greater faction/loyalty rewards for the IS.

The fact is, IS 'mechs ARE weaker than clan 'mechs in the lore, and they were meant to be. The IS had their numbers, that was their advantage. The clans aren't the clans, and this isn't really 'MechWarrior if you take away what made the clans, the clans. 10v12 is the most viable solution to this problem. It doesn't even have to be the new focus, you can still have 12v12 and 10v10 matches.


I understand if you can't do this -now- it would at least be nice to just hear you guys say "Definitely at a later time, but for now we need to focus more on CW"

Edited by Loganauer, 10 September 2014 - 01:21 AM.

[Kyone Akashi]

How I feel ... hmm.

Alright, to me this is a let-down. It was MWO that actually got me into Battletech in the first place, but as someone who has grown to deeply appreciate its background I would expect the game to tie into the setting as much as possible. This means a representation of the various factions' organisation. Together with the balancing issues we are all keenly aware off, and which will apparently follow the game for quite a while longer, this means two big arguments for 12v10.

I can only hope that the decision may be revisited based on the community's feedback.