876 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Yeah, for my Torso's, one-third of my armor rating -since 1984- goes to my rear armor on each location. Anyone doing anything less deserves what they get, such as being killed from behind. 10 points is 10 points, regardless of what 'Mech the armor is on. Here's what kills me... the descriptions of armor on Light 'Mechs is "paper thin", meaning it's not as thick as the armor on larger 'Mechs. If a Locust takes a PPC shot ANYWHERE on it's body, it should lose that body part, PERIOD!!!

Edited by Kay Wolf, 24 January 2015 - 07:53 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Kay Wolf, on 24 January 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

Yeah, for my Torso's, one-third of my armor rating -since 1984- goes to my rear armor on each location. Anyone doing anything less deserves what they get, such as being killed from behind. 10 points is 10 points, regardless of what 'Mech the armor is on. Here's what kills me... the descriptions of armor on Light 'Mechs is "paper thin", meaning it's not as thick as the armor on larger 'Mechs. If a Locust takes a PPC shot ANYWHERE on it's body, it should lose that body part, PERIOD!!!

Yes, light mechs were never meant to be brawlers.

[Threat Doc]

No, PGI definitely missed the boat with Role Warfare on Light 'Mechs.

[Kin3ticX]

Kay Wolf, on 24 January 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

No, PGI definitely missed the boat with Role Warfare on Light 'Mechs.

Unfortunately things like running around and narcing and tagging sort of take a backseat to combat. Otherwise you are just ez bait for some real light mech.

[Threat Doc]

Kin3ticX, on 24 January 2015 - 10:29 PM, said:

Unfortunately things like running around and narcing and tagging sort of take a backseat to combat. Otherwise you are just ez bait for some real light mech.

And that's a problem relating directly to map design. PGIs stated goal was to have combat be in your face, short-range, and they were going to design their maps to reflect that goal, so they came out with the smaller maps such as Forest Colony and River City. Map design theory for PGI has evolved to include increasing larger maps since they began, but the maps are not going to be large enough until they can put in perhaps 100 square kilometers, 10 kilometers on a side, and then rebuild the Light 'Mechs to perform the purpose they were meant to perform.

Next, come Information Warfare, which was originally billed as being both internal and external to the combat drops, themselves. In the drop, we know about sharing information between 'Mechs for spotting and locating purposes, especially for LRMs, and so groups can be brought together more quickly. However, information was also supposed to be external, pre-drop Community Warfare information, such as the disposition and composition of forces which, of course PGI may eventually get to, if they can make Community Warfare the size it's going to need to be to make the universe PGI wanted to build a reality.

With Information Warfare, attacking commanders should be able to find out and use information they purchase or otherwise acquire to plan objectives in a drop -hopefully there will be raids as well as all the other stuff PGI seems to deem important, now, which ain't much, frankly-, while defending commanders can use other information to find out who's coming against them, where they're likely to strike, etc. There was supposed to be information commander's could pay for like this, but also misinformation that could lead to other problems. Alas, this community is not mature enough to be able to handle that, I'm afraid.

[pyrocomp]

Hm. Maybe we need 'Alpine peaks blizzard', 'Tourmaline desert sand storm', 'Crimson strait typhoon' (missiles got blown away ) and 'Caustic valley acid fog' maps for lights to do anything? Plus restricting NARC and TAG along with 'strikes consumables to them?

Also something like 'HPG Manifold transmission' (virtual ECM active map-wide) and 'Viridian bog night' (with set of rings, moons and fireflies and glowing shrooms for scenery) to have more interesting environments and more maps (maybe with same geometry for now until the map pool is large enough)? As this, should the environment affect mechs and weapons more than just cooling efficiency? E.g. reduce lasers range on low visibility maps, ballistic range on high gravity maps (JJs and fall damage also affected) and locks lost on 'thunderstorm'-like maps (probably energy weapons discharge also)?

[Threat Doc]

While all of that would be really cool, Pyrocomp, and I would love to see it, I don't know if it's any more or less realistic than what I was talking about in my previous post.

[pyrocomp]

Unless the gaming community does not clearly state what it wants next any dev will go with their own vision of the game hence no reference point provided. If gaming community states its desires the dev may follow them to please community and secure cash flow in future. Or may not and still be on their right and still may present good game.

As for technical side for restrictions on NARC and TAG and strikes, there are already restrictions for TC/CC, so functionality is in place, there is just no decision or will to make such decision in devs mind. Or this restrictions with more restrictions on configs tempering in mechlab (weapon physical sizes, shielding for PPCs, reinforced frame for heavy ACs and so on) are in devs view against making game interesting for majority of players. The question is more political then technical, and surely not code or engine related.

For the maps and environment effects also everything looks like in place as the heat is map dependent, just more dependences or 'hidden quirkes' your mech get entering such map. If there will be strong request for 'more maps right now' and 'inflate content now, enhance it later' then we will have those maps (and the list can be long, including night, T-storm and low visibility variant I every map), as they already have all 'lines and angles' and require less work to do than brand new map.

The question is, do we really want it more than 'enhanced CW and some more mechs' right now?

To get back to topic, clans should be stronger, balanced by 12vs10 rule.

[xe N on]

Clans not equally balanced with IS mechs would not allow a mixed game mode as currently. If clan mechs were more powerful, there wouldn't be any reason to take an IS mech into normal game modes.

However, there could have been several solutions to balance out clan advantages without buffing IS mech directly.

In BT, the IS could strike back the clans by sheer forced but also by better logistics. This should be reflected ingame by:

1. Current modules only available for IS
2. re-do UAV, air/artillery strike and coolant flush as a one time buy module that cost 3 mill Cbill but refill after match
2. Add one "reinforcement" type module slot per IS mech

The reinforcement modules would allow IS mech to profit from their better infrastructure.

These special modules would e.g.
- repair a damages mechs armor by 10 points per part
- refill all used ammo
- re-attach an random destroyed part with without armor but will full structure
Using these special action would however shut down the mech for 10 secs.

Edited by xe N on, 25 January 2015 - 12:23 AM.

[pyrocomp]

Not sure that every one will play clans if they will be a bit stronger. Lights is the category where there presently clans look poor, plus Atlas will stay, as many other mechs. Plus, imho, not all play 'best available' but also 'love those chassis'. So your idea is great, but clans should be stronger as your reinforcements are translated into extra armor, more ammo per ton etc. So ono-on-one clans should be stronger, but in coordinated group IS should equal clans, imho.

[Khalar Terres]

Hi there. I dont´t have read all the comments to this Topic, just had a short look at the last 50 ;-) .
Finaly 4 me Pyro is on the right way with his last sentence.
Let´s use thefiction:
Clans made assaultdrops. With normaly just 1 second wave ( u know it ....) . The IS has had stoppd them with tricks and Manpower ( and a lot of stuff ) .
So lets see. If we want to Play the timeline the IS will loos a lot of games ( all at last) , but intha case nobody will ply IS. If they nerve the Clan to much , is like cheating for me. They have more powerfull Mechs , so thegenerall balancing is OK for me atm.

If we will do a FW thats playable for both sides they have to give th IS more reserves. Maybe 4 Mechs/Player on IS and 2-3 Mechs/Player for the Clans. So they have to Play a little bit more with thinking... and not just Standing and eating the IS-fire ....

Or they have to give every mech a BV like in the Tabletop. They maybe use an average BV for both sides and Change the tons for eatch drop.
if clanmechs are v.e. 30 % more powerfull, they just have 70% of the tons that the IS can use, or 30% less on reinforcements - every Clanplayer can only use 3 of his 4 Chosen mechs...

Sorry for my shity english, but i have the flu . And remember , i never played Clans in FW so i dont how they are for a Player , just know them as enemys..

Edited by Khalar Terres, 25 January 2015 - 01:56 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Khalar Terres, on 25 January 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

Hi there. I dont´t have read all the comments to this Topic, just had a short look at the last 50 ;-) .
Finaly 4 me Pyro is on the right way with his last sentence.
Let´s use thefiction:
Clans made assaultdrops. With normaly just 1 second wave ( u know it ....) . The IS has had stoppd them with tricks and Manpower ( and a lot of stuff ) .
So lets see. If we want to Play the timeline the IS will loos a lot of games ( all at last) , but intha case nobody will ply IS. If they nerve the Clan to much , is like cheating for me. They have more powerfull Mechs , so thegenerall balancing is OK for me atm.

If we will do a FW thats playable for both sides they have to give th IS more reserves. Maybe 4 Mechs/Player on IS and 2-3 Mechs/Player for the Clans. So they have to Play a little bit more with thinking... and not just Standing and eating the IS-fire ....

Or they have to give every mech a BV like in the Tabletop. They maybe use an average BV for both sides and Change the tons for eatch drop.
if clanmechs are v.e. 30 % more powerfull, they just have 70% of the tons that the IS can use, or 30% less on reinforcements - every Clanplayer can only use 3 of his 4 Chosen mechs...

Sorry for my shity english, but i have the flu . And remember , i never played Clans in FW so i dont how they are for a Player , just know them as enemys..

Clans are not near 30% more powerful. Maybe a stock build vs a stock build the clans are better, but once you add in player customization, naw....they are alot more equal...and in some regards, given IS quirks, the IS are actually the ones who are better.

[pyrocomp]

LordKnightFandragon, on 25 January 2015 - 05:05 AM, said:

Clans are not near 30% more powerful. Maybe a stock build vs a stock build the clans are better, but once you add in player customization, naw....they are alot more equal...and in some regards, given IS quirks, the IS are actually the ones who are better.

Well, as I think, that is the point adressed here. Balance not through mech equality, but through other means. Denerf Clans back and give not-dps-related buff to IS (12vs10 and balance tech on normal matches). As a weak analogy I'd refer to chess vs chekers .

Edited by pyrocomp, 25 January 2015 - 06:21 AM.

[Threat Doc]

pyrocomp, on 25 January 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

Unless the gaming community does not clearly state what it wants next any dev will go with their own vision of the game hence no reference point provided.

Yes, we tried that from the beginning, from the first day the forums opened to us, and PGI has ever ignored what it was we told them we wanted to see in the game.

[kosmos1214]

Kay Wolf, on 25 January 2015 - 09:37 AM, said:

Yes, we tried that from the beginning, from the first day the forums opened to us, and PGI has ever ignored what it was we told them we wanted to see in the game.

maybe because its been nothing but dumb ideas

[Threat Doc]

kosmos1214, on 25 January 2015 - 02:31 PM, said:

maybe because its been nothing but dumb ideas

Only an ignorant mean twitcher-***** would think that.

[kosmos1214]

no sorry but iv seen very few good ideas out of this community most of what they suggest pretty much all comes back to
"but lore says" witch is not how you translate a table top game in to an action shooter high bread and make a good game and fact is making a good game trumps lore 100% of the time period and most of the people making said suggestions get told why there idea is bad or wont work / is just plain imbalanced and rather then listen and try to come up with an idea that would work and is reasonably balanced they wine and through a fit and complain now im not saying this community is a bad one what im saying is they need to be open minded and try to come up with practical ideas that are actually viable 10v12 is the best example of a bad balance idea thats been given and despite having been explained very well why this is a bad idea it keeps showing up

[Threat Doc]

Look, I've said it plenty of times that the combat engine for this game is nearly perfect, and I stick by that. There are routes I would have gone and changes I would make, but it's definitely fine, except for ECM and Light 'Mechs being horribly OP.

Anything that is peripheral to the combat engine, there is absolutely ZERO excuse for going by anything other than what's already been provided in the lore, and that's where PGI is falling down. If they would have done things by the lore, including the development of units in the game -BattleTech is, after all, about organized military combat, not the BS we have going on, now- including rank, position, and awards structures, strategic planning, raids, small, medium, and large contracts, sequential -or at least multiple- drops to complete single contracts, you would have that fun game. Right now, it's little more than a slaughter-only fest, it's MechWarrior IVs garbage all over again.

See, you're coming from the standpoint that you just want to kill things, over and over and over again. Well, BattleTech isn't Heavy Gear, it's not any of the former MechWarrior games, except perhaps MechWarrior III, it's not Hawken, and it deserves the right treatment to make it more than just a shoot-em-up with the right weapons and names. What you're not seeing, my little incorrectly verbal twitcher pal, is that this game is not only about you and your fellow twitchers, it's supposed to be about the whole of the community, and the ONLY part of the community being served at this time are those who will give their time and money to the game, now, with zero hope of return for PGI down the road, when you get tired and go do something else.

[kosmos1214]

ahahahahaheheheheheee you dont know me very well im not a shooter player and what you want based on what you are saying is battletech the mmo witch is an idea i can respect but what you what is unreasonable not for the idea but for who you are asking it from a small company that in no way has the resources to provide that and if you hadn't noticed this is a
mechwarrior game not a battletech mmo in all honesty they are doing a very good job and trying to be lore friendly and no im not here just to kill things as you put im here to play a good game actually this game is what has gotten me in to battletech despite all the not head in its community and no im not leaving any time soon

[Threat Doc]

kosmos1214, on 25 January 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

ahahahahaheheheheheee

Well, if you don't want to be mistaken for a shooter/twitcher player, you shouldn't talk like one of them.

Do I want a BattleTech MMO? Absolutely! However, what I want for this game, now, is what PGI originally said THEY wanted to do with the game. It's why I paid for Founders, and it's why I've invested about five times more money in this game than I ever would in any cover, thus far. There are folks out there that have spent hundreds of times more than the standard game would cost, were it sold in a story. No, I want what PGI said they were going to do and, thus far, they are far off the mark.