418 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

WHEN exactly are they supposed to do that? The devs are finally ACTUALLY working on CW right now.

When are they supposed to entirely redesign mech creation?

I mean is this like that final fantasy game where they took it down and relaunched it?

The simple fact is right now the only reason we're going to see any balance changes, even in the face of total destruction, is honestly because the previous balance designer (Paul) got his claws off it for the moment.

Quite frankly, I'm horrified he'll come back to this post after he finishes with CW. I truly to this day believe that 99% of the balance problems and refusal to budge even an inch lay directly at this feet, and frankly I want as many alternate ideas as possible submitted while Russ is manually dealing with this.

Before anyone says I'm hating, I do want to point out that Paul's very last act in charge of balance was to nerf the Autocannon/2. If that doesn't sum up why I have this sentiment, I don't know what will. At the very least I don't feel like Russ is actively trying to troll everyone at the moment. I half think Paul is sitting on the sidelines rubbing his hands together desperately wanting to nerf the flamer, right now.

Again, the more good ideas that reach Russ's ears now while he has control, the better.

Edited by Victor Morson, 07 October 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 01:43 PM, said:

frankly, for a lot of people, CW won't change a thing if the game is still the same old boring meta, hence why a lot of us would like to see a rework of the mechlab beforehand.

Yeah how much heat would it create honestly if they then delayed CW again after saying they were working on it to do something else?

IMO they should FINALLY do CW THEN do the changes

And fire Paul

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[Johnny Z]

1st edition Battletech board game. The Warhammer was the hardest hitting mech even above the Atlas. It was a sort of balance between the armor of the Atlas and the heavy hitting of the Warhammer.

The Warhammer was feared on the battlefield because it carried 2 PPC's.

This plus the look of the mech and later Natasha Kerensky modeling for it made the Warhammer one of the most favoured mechs in Battletech and Mechwarrior to this day I guess 30 years later.

Its this spirit of Battletech and Mechwarrior that has made it successfull over the years and most of the games have managed to have at least some of it. This game has done a very poor job of that so far to be very honest, from the "PLAY NOW" buttons and complete lack of anything battletech related beyond the mech bay and mechs and battlefields.

The game has potential and is heading in the right direction I think, but the above still stands at the moment.

[Alistair Winter]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 06 October 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

Why are you so concerned about the ac40 cat when theres about to be a 100 ton dual ac40 mech lol

Because the King Crab takes up on assault slot and the AC40 cat doesn't. The AC40 cat isn't as big a problem as it used to be, really. Now it's just irritating, because people are using the mech for something it really wasn't designed to do. It's like if the Boar's Head with an XL400, MASC and SSRM2 + medium laserboating turned out to be a great light mech killer, moving at 120+ kph with more armour than anything in the game. It would still be crap against anything but light mechs, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the Boar's Head is not supposed to be a fast light mech hunter, even if it's possible within the MWO rules.

But yeah, I'm sure it'll suck a bit more to be a light / medium mech pilot when the King Crab comes

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Johnny Z, on 07 October 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

This plus the look of the mech and later Natasha Kerensky modeling for it made the Warhammer one of the most favoured mechs in Battletech and Mechwarrior to this day I guess 30 years later.

also the most... ligitous (lawsuit prone) mech in existance as well

Alistair Winter, on 07 October 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Because the King Crab takes up on assault slot and the AC40 cat doesn't. The AC40 cat isn't as big a problem as it used to be, really. Now it's just irritating, because people are using the mech for something it really wasn't designed to do. It's like if the Boar's Head with an XL400, MASC and SSRM2 + medium laserboating turned out to be a great light mech killer, moving at 120+ kph with more armour than anything in the game. It would still be crap against anything but light mechs, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the Boar's Head is not supposed to be a fast light mech hunter, even if it's possible within the MWO rules.

But yeah, I'm sure it'll suck a bit more to be a light / medium mech pilot when the King Crab comes

The k-2 shouldnt have HAD ballistics hardpoints if they werent meant to be used then

Because if we've learned nothing else it should be if you put the hardpoints on they will be used (abused)

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 01:53 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

And fire Paul

Well, maybe not fire him. I'm sure there's other work he could do. But I agree that judging by how they've handled gameplay balance, he's probably not the best guy for the job. Unless someone else is making decisions for him, and it's not his fault.

[Sybreed]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

Yeah how much heat would it create honestly if they then delayed CW again after saying they were working on it to do something else?

IMO they should FINALLY do CW THEN do the changes

And fire Paul

I don't disagree with that. If they're almost done with CW (or halfway through or w/e), it's better to finish what they started before working on something else.

[Alistair Winter]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

The k-2 shouldnt have HAD ballistics hardpoints if they werent meant to be used then

At this point, I realize we're probably never going to understand each other. And if we do, we probably won't agree.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I always thought it was more funny that ppl got angry that you could put ac20/gauss where a machinegun was than they got about the fact that you can replace the engine and the skeleton in an IS mech.

[Asyres]

Night Fury76, on 07 October 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

Well Asyres make a poll that proves more than 140 players will quit over fixed hardpoint sizes to prove your point. Fool

Statistics proves my point, so a poll will not be necessary.

In case you weren't clear - and it certainly seems that you aren't - my point was that a year old poll with a tiny number of respondents is not a useful gauge of public opinion.

IceSerpent, on 07 October 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Sorry, can't agree on that. First, total number of people browsing the forums includes a lot of "guests", and we don't know if those are members of the community that didn't bother to login or just random people checking out MWO (i.e. not playing at all).
Second, we have no idea how many people play the game and never visit the forums - could be 5 or could be 50,000. Not knowing the size of the playerbase means that we have no way of knowing whether sample size is miniscule or huge.
On top of that a case can be made that folks who don't bother voting don't care about the issue, in which case that sample size becomes 100% of players who at least give a broken dime about the proposal.

Alright, you have a fair point here, but it's pretty immaterial, because the sample size of the poll is more or less useless unless the actual active population of MWO is under 1000 users. If it's over that - and I don't think it's especially reasonable to suggest that it isn't - you fall into standard issue polling procedure, which gives you a margin of error where the possible outcomes of the poll overlap - basically, it's too close to call, despite not looking that way.

I'd disagree about people who don't vote, however. This being a forum, there's plenty of opportunities for people to simply miss a poll - I remember a number of posts complaining that folks had missed the recent assault and game mode polls, for instance.

--

On topic: A well-designed hardpoint size system, combined with better weapon balance, has the potential to greatly improve the game. Right now, the biggest problem that I see with the OP's proposal is that class 1 ballistic and energy hardpoints would be horrible. just because the weapons in those categories are pretty weak in most circumstances.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Alistair Winter, on 07 October 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Well, maybe not fire him. I'm sure there's other work he could do. But I agree that judging by how they've handled gameplay balance, he's probably not the best guy for the job. Unless someone else is making decisions for him, and it's not his fault.

Other work that doesnt directly affect the game in any way, yes. Stick him on working on Transverse perminantly, even if theres no real work on it. Yes, he will be a drain on mobney but its worth it to keep him away from MWO

[Sybreed]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

also the most... ligitous (lawsuit prone) mech in existance as well



The k-2 shouldnt have HAD ballistics hardpoints if they werent meant to be used then

Because if we've learned nothing else it should be if you put the hardpoints on they will be used (abused)

the problem is with how PGI handled machine guns, period.

They should always have been a low cooldown, 2 damage short range weapon. Not that "keep clicking on that button forever" crap we got. I guess they can keep their bonus to crit, meh.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

I always thought it was more funny that ppl got angry that you could put ac20/gauss where a machinegun was than they got about the fact that you can replace the engine and the skeleton in an IS mech.

oh believe me, if it were for me, we would only have stock mechs, but a lot of variants. I hate the ******* mechlab.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

oh believe me, if it were for me, we would only have stock mechs, but a lot of variants. I hate the ******* mechlab.

If that were the case Id never have started playing this game. The mechlab is the reason I left MWLL to play this

[Sybreed]

about Paul: the problem is that they went for a guy who worked at Nexxon... a company notorious for bad F2P games. Succesful games perhaps, but not in North America, because North Americans don't like "buying power" and endless grinds in general... they prefer F2P like DotA or LoL. Hell, I even think War Thunder lost some NA customers when they upped the grind by 200%

[Sybreed]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

If that were the case Id never have started playing this game. The mechlab is the reason I left MWLL to play this

/shrugs

Agree to disagree

Edited by Sybreed, 07 October 2014 - 02:03 PM.

[Maxx Blue]

I'm pretty sure this has all been said already, but this is where I am at regarding sized hardpoints:

• Hardpoint sizes won't stop boating unless you never introduce variants that boat something stock. There are probably already cannonical TT mechs out there that carry most of the crazy boating builds we have made, or are close enough that sized harpoints wouldn't stop them. Hardpoint sizes only DELAY boating problems until you want to add a mech that would boat something in stock form.
  
• Hardpoint sizes are actually better for making mechs more distinct from each other. RIght now tonnage, max engine rating, hitboxes, and the ability to mount any jump jets are most of what defines a mech (add in fixed equipment for clan mechs). The second-tier stats that help add flavor are the hardpoint number/type, agility and hardpoint placement on the actual 3D model. If you added sized hardpoints, then hardpoint number/type would probably become a tier-one factor in making mechs distinct.
  
• Hardpoint sizes wont necessarily make MORE mechs competitive. It will likely just change WHICH mechs are competitive.
  
• I am pro-sized-hardpoints.

I would like sized hardpoints simply because it helps some mechs remain 'special' in a way that ties back to TT. However, they are not a solution to pinpoint alphas unless PGI promises never to add any mechs that could carry a high-pinpoint build using stock hardpoints. I suppose I could live with the Annihilator 1G ruining lives with 3xGauss+1xERPPC, but it probably shouldn't, and that is something you can't fix unless you either don't put the variant in the game or you deal with pinpoint-alpha on its own.

[Gorgo7]

I think attempting to cover each Mech based on its outline is too work intensive. Instead I propose giving the weapons a size and limiting it to a mech "one size smaller"
Try Assault, Large, Medium and Small for weapon sizes.
The weapon of the appropriate size can fit in a mech of one size smaller.

ie
Assault class weapons, Gauss Rifle, LRM 20, AC20. Any Large mech or greater may carry them.
Large weapons are PPC's, LPLaser, AC10, LBX10, LRM15. Any Med mech or greater may carry them.
Med weapons are LLasers, AC5's, AC2's, SRM6 and 4, LRM10, Any Small mech or greater may carry them.
Small weapons are MLasers, SLasers, SRM2, Streak2, LRM5, Machine guns. Any may equip them.

Exceptions can be made for cannon variants...Hunchback AC20, Griffon 3M - LRM20 etc.

This avoids overly complicated (and argumentative) takes on everyone's favorite chassis.

Cheers,

Gorgo7

Edited by Gorgo7, 07 October 2014 - 02:06 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Maxx Blue, on 07 October 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure this has all been said already, but this is where I am at regarding sized hardpoints:

• Hardpoint sizes won't stop boating

Nothing SHOULD stop boating as boating is a TT staple

Unless you wanna basically remove the catapult and the 8Q awesome at least

[Johnny Z]

Asyres, on 07 October 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

Statistics proves my point, so a poll will not be necessary.

In case you weren't clear - and it certainly seems that you aren't - my point was that a year old poll with a tiny number of respondents is not a useful gauge of public opinion.



Alright, you have a fair point here, but it's pretty immaterial, because the sample size of the poll is more or less useless unless the actual active population of MWO is under 1000 users. If it's over that - and I don't think it's especially reasonable to suggest that it isn't - you fall into standard issue polling procedure, which gives you a margin of error where the possible outcomes of the poll overlap - basically, it's too close to call, despite not looking that way.

I'd disagree about people who don't vote, however. This being a forum, there's plenty of opportunities for people to simply miss a poll - I remember a number of posts complaining that folks had missed the recent assault and game mode polls, for instance.

--

On topic: A well-designed hardpoint size system, combined with better weapon balance, has the potential to greatly improve the game. Right now, the biggest problem that I see with the OP's proposal is that class 1 ballistic and energy hardpoints would be horrible. just because the weapons in those categories are pretty weak in most circumstances.

I just looked for this poll and cant find it....

Maybe a good idea if the OP put a link to the poll and maybe that coloured chart that other guy did?

Nevermind, I seen he did link the poll.

Edited by Johnny Z, 07 October 2014 - 02:11 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Johnny Z, on 07 October 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

I just looked for this poll and cant find it....

Maybe a good idea if the OP put a link to the poll and maybe that coloured chart that other guy did?

Nevermind, I seen he did link the poll.

That IS how things work in this game XD Pie charts and graphs over reasoned arguments