202 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

Solaris is a very small part of TT. You're also not entirely correct about the "core" - it is a core mechanic for sure, but it's intended to be used as a part of a bigger game. Kind of like combat in Total War series is intended to work in conjunction with things on global map.

That still changes nothing about ammunition balancing. Ammunition on the mech still needs to suffice for an entire battle. What does it matter if you have plenty of ammo back at the base if you are not there. And even if you were, you'd have to leave battle, rearm and then get back out there. By that time, the base is gone.

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

We only have 12 vs. 12 because PGI made it so. There are no inherent limitations or rules governing how one can split 24 players into teams. We could have had 5 vs 19 (or any other 2 team sizes that add up to 24 total players) just as easily as 12 vs. 12. Heck, there's really nothing preventing having those 24 players split into more than 2 teams - you can have 4 teams of 6 if you want to.

Totally correct, except it still doesn't take into account that most players want equal influence on victory and you only achieve this in symmetric battles. The games where asymmetric gameplay works is games where each team does different things, but in MWO both teams consists of mechs.

[D04S02B04]

I disagree with the OP pertaining to naming conventions and appreciation for lore. I played some Battletech before but not as a hardcore fan with all the tabletop rules etc. Just some casual Battletech trading card game and some of the mechwarrior series. Didn't really understand what Clans or Inner Sphere was about.

Naming Conventions
Year
Kar98k was adopted in 1898.
MP44 was adopted in 1944
AK47 was adopted in 1947
M1911 colt was adopted in 1911

Currently, the chinese military is the most notorious for naming everything after the year the item was developed/adopted from uniforms to weapons to tanks etc.

Calibre size or bore length.
German weapons, they even include a designation of L to describe bore length. E.g. 88 mm Kwk 43 L/71
American tank weapons are the same AFAIK


Your lack of knowledge doesn't make anything "lame",

Lore
I actually prefer Clan Mechs to be seriously OP as per Lore and be always fighting outnumbered against Inner Sphere. That way I can feel like I am either a elite pilot fighting against the odds as a Clan or the beleaguered underdogs driving sub par Mechs against an arrogant enemy... rather than the current situations that Clan Mechs = Inner Sphere Mechs because they have been nerfed but in reality some Clan mechs and some Clan tech are a little OP (i.e. Timberwolf, Stormcrow, IS still takes the cake for more versatile assaults than a crawling boat without ECM).

Edited by D04S02B04, 04 October 2014 - 07:31 PM.

[Kassatsu]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

You just made my point. This is a shooter where 12 people is going up against 12 people. To make this fun, everyone must have equal opportunity to help his team achieve victory. Only way to ensure that is to make all mech equally able to help the team in some way. With TT rules, the Atlas means more to the team than the shadowhawk.
If instead we somehow magically made the Matchmaker able to match unequal mechs into assymetric fights, the shadowhawks on one team would still contribute less individually than the Atlas on the other team. Not fun at all for the Shadowhawks. Most would still want to pilot Atlas' just have a bigger influence on the game.

Is that where we're at now? News to me. Last time I checked only a select few mechs were even considered usable by anyone outside of the solo drop underhive.

[IceSerpent]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 07:11 PM, said:

That still changes nothing about ammunition balancing. Ammunition on the mech still needs to suffice for an entire battle. What does it matter if you have plenty of ammo back at the base if you are not there. And even if you were, you'd have to leave battle, rearm and then get back out there. By that time, the base is gone.

Agreed. Well, technically it doesn't always need to last the entire battle - you can have some sort of multi-stage raid, where players have to chose between taking energy-heavy build and dealing with heat issues and running out of ammo half way through, then having to rely on backup weapons only for the rest of the fight.

Quote

Totally correct, except it still doesn't take into account that most players want equal influence on victory and you only achieve this in symmetric battles. The games where asymmetric gameplay works is games where each team does different things, but in MWO both teams consists of mechs.

The only way to achieve that equal influence is for everubody to use the same exact mech and build. It's a pipe dream in MW game - as long as you put different mechs on the same team, you will always have a diference in influence. For example, current 3/3/3/3 scheme guarantees that influence is equal for 3 players out of 12 at most.

[Savage Wolf]

Kassatsu, on 04 October 2014 - 07:30 PM, said:

Is that where we're at now? News to me. Last time I checked only a select few mechs were even considered usable by anyone outside of the solo drop underhive.

You are not incorrect. But the initial proposal of using TT balance would only make this a lot worse. But it is what MWO is trying to do, to the best of their ability. Quirks will help, but giving lackluster mechs more unique abilities would have helped more, but that would break Battletech in it's current form.

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Agreed. Well, technically it doesn't always need to last the entire battle - you can have some sort of multi-stage raid, where players have to chose between taking energy-heavy build and dealing with heat issues and running out of ammo half way through, then having to rely on backup weapons only for the rest of the fight.

Sorry, but how is that different?

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

The only way to achieve that equal influence is for everubody to use the same exact mech and build. It's a pipe dream in MW game - as long as you put different mechs on the same team, you will always have a diference in influence. For example, current 3/3/3/3 scheme guarantees that influence is equal for 3 players out of 12 at most.

There are different types of influences and what would be best was a form of synergy among mechs on a team. Currently only light mechs really experience a unique role where they contribute in a way no other mechs can. But yes, Mediums are not currently equal to the others in influence, but this is yet again because BattleTech dictates that mechs are different only through tonnage. 3/3/3/3 is proof in itself that the goal has not been achieved.
But while the goal has not been achieved, it doesn't mean it should be abandoned. Doing that would be going back to earlier MW titles where only assaults were king. But I don't believe we can achieve this fully as long as MWO is limited to the current version of BattleTech. It needs to change and evolve for the better of balance and game play.

[Lefty Lucy]

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

[color=#959595]I don't get why you would say that. I've never found TT to be particularly unbalanced as long as the mech creation rules were not used by johnny-munchkin to take advantage of every possible rule loophole in the books.[/color]

Even if you use 3025 tech and no customization there are glaring imbalances. Mechs with max or near max armor, PPCs, MLs, and enough SHS to be fairly heat neutral are far better than any other.

[IceSerpent]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

Sorry, but how is that different?

How not always having enough ammo to last an entire engagement is different from always having it? The difference is in you pulling the trigger and only hearing a click.

Quote

There are different types of influences and what would be best was a form of synergy among mechs on a team. Currently only light mechs really experience a unique role where they contribute in a way no other mechs can. But yes, Mediums are not currently equal to the others in influence, but this is yet again because BattleTech dictates that mechs are different only through tonnage. 3/3/3/3 is proof in itself that the goal has not been achieved.
But while the goal has not been achieved, it doesn't mean it should be abandoned. Doing that would be going back to earlier MW titles where only assaults were king. But I don't believe we can achieve this fully as long as MWO is limited to the current version of BattleTech. It needs to change and evolve for the better of balance and game play.

I am not convinced that equal influence is a more worthy goal than different roles for different mechs. Regardless, I don't quite follow what it has to do with uneven teams. If you match a few good mechs against many not so good ones, you get as much equal influence within a team as you do now.

[Savage Wolf]

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

How not always having enough ammo to last an entire engagement is different from always having it? The difference is in you pulling the trigger and only hearing a click.

Well that is different, but simply the other extreme. Problem is, if you don't run out of ammo, ammo based weapons are better. If you DO run out, energy weapons are better. So they are never balanced.

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

I am not convinced that equal influence is a more worthy goal than different roles for different mechs. Regardless, I don't quite follow what it has to do with uneven teams. If you match a few good mechs against many not so good ones, you get as much equal influence within a team as you do now.

Different roles for different mechs would help achieve equal influence for all players. And you might with uneven teams make sure that people on the same team has the same influence on the battle, sure. But that's not enough. They need to have the same influence on the battle as everyone else in the entire battle. I would rather be on the 5 Atlas team than the 10 Shadowhawk team.

[Wolfways]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

The whole system for building mechs are also convoluted and complex. Why is Artimis an upgrade instead of just a different type of LRM weapons?

There are different warhead types for LRM's. ArtemisIV is an upgrade to LRM's just like ER and Ultra are an upgrade to lasers and AC's.

[Mercules]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Overly simplified? Where?

Go play other TT strategy warfare games using models. Warhammer and WH40K are two of the most popular out there aside from Battletech and their rules are probably 5 times as complex once you add in all the different army books.

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

Battletech evolved!

Is that going to be like D&D 4th Edition? See the best version of D&D is Pathfinder. To understand why it would be because they kept the 3.5 core and expanded and corrected imbalance instead of throwing everything out. 2.0(AD&D) was pretty poor. One of the best gaming systems out there is GURPS and 4th edition was not a radical change from 3rd, just more of a balance shift than actual rewriting. Things were clarified. Just like the current "Classic" Battletech rules are clarifications and balance fixes of the original system.

See... you people act like the rules are 20+ years old and have never once altered at all. They have while still keeping all the core things. It was a well built core and has stood the test of time.

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

You just made my point. This is a shooter where 12 people is going up against 12 people. To make this fun, everyone must have equal opportunity to help his team achieve victory. Only way to ensure that is to make all mech equally able to help the team in some way. With TT rules, the Atlas means more to the team than the shadowhawk.
If instead we somehow magically made the Matchmaker able to match unequal mechs into assymetric fights, the shadowhawks on one team would still contribute less individually than the Atlas on the other team. Not fun at all for the Shadowhawks. Most would still want to pilot Atlas' just have a bigger influence on the game.

No it doesn't. Every mech is an asset.

All you are saying is that MWO as it exists right now should just have everyone drop in a 100 tonner since no one WANTS to play the 50 tonners or such by your opinion. That is just stupid. Trust me. If a group of 15 mediocre mechs dropped against a group of 10 Meta mechs they would probably have a fun battle. The Meta players would be swarmed from too many sides at once and their high BV mechs would have to deal with being focus fired from multiple lower BV mechs.

Each individual player of lower BV mechs would still be shooting at things and dodging things. It's only E-Peen morons who cry if they don't get their big numbers and need to be the center of attention. Most players would just be happy getting a win.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Prosperity Park, on 04 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yup. I'm sad because I think BattleTech is holding the MechWarrior franchise back from being as cool as it should be.

You play other Mechy Stompy games, and they have lots of cool features, and so does this game. However, the features of this game are limited to a build-set from a Table Top game that's not being dynamically-expanded for the current application. For instance, we have these weapons called "AC/10" and they deal 10 damage. Wow, what a super-original naming system.

If I were a soldier in the field, and was told that my weapon was an AC/10, I would ask something like "Does that mean it's a 10mm?"

And the response would be "No, it deals 10 damage."

"What do you mean, 'It deals 10 damage' ? What is 'a' damage?"

"Don't ask questions, Soldier, you will accept that it deals 10 damage and you will like it!"

And that's the Lore this game is based on - a Universe where that conversation actually happens.

I mean, there is no immersion whatsoever when the weapons of the game are literally named after the number of "points" they deal. There is no such thing as "damage points" in war, so the weapons should not be named after the damage points they inflict. That is just CHEESY!

Also, the limited number of weapon systems in the game based on the Year of the Lore is something that should only be implemented in a game that's designed for pre-existing BattleTech fans. If this game is really being marketed to non-BattleTech fans in an effort to expand the playerbase, then we should not be adhering to the Lore's technology limitations. A non-BattleTech fan has 0 appreciation for the "reason" why the Inner Sphere forces have no LBX-AC/5 or UAC/10s. Zero appreciation at all, and it's harming the game.

Why would you enforce rules like that if their only existence is to create a situation where the game gets more exciting by waiting 10 years for additional content? We don't need to wait 10 years for additional content. I'm sure you can find ways to make the game more exciting over the course of the next ten years other than by slowly releasing additional IS Tech that's not around until 3060.

__________________

What I am saying is... basically... MekTek had it right when they made their own non-cannon weapons systems. The canon of BattleTech is only as holy as the Developers intention to make this game specifically for pre-existing BattleTech fans, and not to market it to a greater audience.

We need better names for equipment. "Large Laser" Oh, how impressive, tell me how large it is...

I said back on the beta forums that we should just ditch the table stuff cause it wont work in this game and ppl shouted me down XD

Because as Mercules I believe said "that wouldnt be Mechwarrior"

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 04 October 2014 - 09:39 PM.

[Roadbeer]

This thread...


... is why we can't have nice things.

[IceSerpent]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

Well that is different, but simply the other extreme. Problem is, if you don't run out of ammo, ammo based weapons are better. If you DO run out, energy weapons are better. So they are never balanced.

Not necessarily, you can make them equally viable. If you don't run out, you can equalize firepower. If you do run out, you can make it a choice between initial high damage with low damage later (or none at all) for ammo-based and average damage throughout the match for energy.

Quote

Different roles for different mechs would help achieve equal influence for all players. And you might with uneven teams make sure that people on the same team has the same influence on the battle, sure. But that's not enough. They need to have the same influence on the battle as everyone else in the entire battle. I would rather be on the 5 Atlas team than the 10 Shadowhawk team.

Why? Being on 5 Atlas team gives you the same influence as each other Atlas. Being on 10 Shadowhawk team gives you the same influence as each other Shadowhawk.
Not to mention that this whole concept only works if your team consists of the same exact mechs. As soon as you allow Atlases and Shadowhawks on the same team, all equality goes out of the window.

[Mercules]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 04 October 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

I said back on the beta forums that we should just ditch the table stuff cause it wont work in this game and ppl shouted me down XD

Because as Mercules I believe said "that wouldnt be Mechwarrior"

Yup, I did. There is this mecha game out there called Hawken. It is not beholden to any TT rules whatsoever. No one is forcing people to play a game based off the Battletech universe.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

The guys who dream of equality.
Would you be satisfied to play the game of your dream - EqualWarrior: Online, where you have one mech with one weapon, and fight 12vs12 on a totally flat map? No matter the result, everyone gets the same amount of cash and XP.

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:

Go play other TT strategy warfare games using models. Warhammer and WH40K are two of the most popular out there aside from Battletech and their rules are probably 5 times as complex once you add in all the different army books.

I'd say that 40K TT mechanics seriously lacks depth in comparison to BT TT, I don't even know what made you say it's more complex.. There are many armies there and they have different properties that are being re-written and rebalanced all the time, but that doesn't make the game complex. As for me, 40K is rather blunt mechanics-wise, compared to BT, but is still has its own appeal and I really love 40K universe, maybe even more than BT)
Sorry for off-topic)

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 04 October 2014 - 09:54 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

Yup, I did. There is this mecha game out there called Hawken. It is not beholden to any TT rules whatsoever. No one is forcing people to play a game based off the Battletech universe.

And if you remember I said base the game off the LORE (mech names, likenesses, story, etc etc etc etc) but toss out the TABLES

which they mostly are doing given that theyre adjusting all the ranges and damage anyways so by your own definition, YOIU should be playing Hawken, not me, cause I like this game, thanks

The only thing that keeps me from playing it more is whatever is wrapped around my ulnar nerve.

painful as hell when using a mouse

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 04 October 2014 - 09:54 PM.

[Mercules]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 04 October 2014 - 09:51 PM, said:

And if you remember I said base the game off the LORE but toss out the TABLES (which they mostly are doing given that theyre adjusting all the ranges and damage anyways so by your own definition, YOIU should be playing Hawken, not me)

...and if you have been paying attention to me since then I have pointed out numerous times they didn't even use the tables right and that is half the issue with balance. They only half implimented the TT rules and that is why they have so many screwed up systems.

Ghost Heat, one of the most hated balancing attempts, only exists because they ignore the HEAT PENALTY TABLE.

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 04 October 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

I'd say that 40K TT mechanics seriously lacks depth in comparison to BT TT, I don't even know what made you say it's more complex.. There are many armies there and they have different properties that are being re-written and rebalanced all the time, but that doesn't make the game complex. As for me, 40K is rather blunt mechanics-wise, compared to BT, but is still has its own appeal and I really love 40K universe, maybe even more than BT)
Sorry for off-topic)

Um... considering all the goofy one off rules in all the army books... 40k is a bit more complex. At least BT doesn't have contradictions like weapons that always hit versus items that make weapons only hit on a 5 or better role. Which rule takes precedent? Really I was thinking more of Warhammer Fantasy which has formations and rule as to where models go in the formation or changing formations and charging and...

[Mystere]

Khobai, on 04 October 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

rearm costs arnt a good way of balancing weapons though. Because some people have hundreds of millions if not billions of cbils. and that kindve balancing simply has no effect on them.

I have this nagging thought that most of those billions would not exist today if R&R was not removed and the costs were at full rates. I think those billions came to be precisely because of the removal of R&R.

[Iyica de Tylmarande]

Really lack of lore is holding the game back. Each mech chassis should have a bit of fluff text. Nothing major, even a copy/pasta from Sarna would suffice. When CW arrives, planets should also receive some fluff. E.g. If I'm Davion and defending Kentares IV from Kurita, I want to the fluff there for new players to realise the historical significance of that planet.

But really BT lore will never be fully utilised until they make a single-player/co-op campaign. I would GLADLY sink money into that. Me and the millions of others who had been waiting for MW5.

Edited by Iyica de Tylmarande, 04 October 2014 - 10:23 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 04 October 2014 - 10:03 PM, said:

I have this nagging thought that most of those billions would not exist today if R&R was not removed and the costs were at full rates. I think those billions came to be precisely because of the removal of R&R.

Have they said what theyre going to do when CW comes out with that? Cause the billionaires will have everything already and then billions of cbills

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 04 October 2014 - 10:35 PM.