63 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Here's an idea. Use the Public Test servers to test out radical stuff like this. Instead of just looking at the figures and spreadsheets and trying to find the best solution through scholastic discourse, just... try it out.

Not only would it be a great way for PGI to test interesting alternative solutions, but I think a lot of players would enjoy the fresh change of pace from having semi-monthly public tests with completely radical, game changing ideas.

For example, it would be cool to try out completely different rules for how ECM and LRM works. And it would be cool to try out completely new rules for how single heat sinks work, to make them a viable alternative to DHS builds for certain mechs. (e.g. much higher capacity, but slower cooldown)

That being said, I'm not sure the comp teams will have an idea that most hardcore Battletech fans will like. It seems like a lot of competitive players don't really have a lot of nostalgia when it comes to Battletech or older Mechwarrior games. Furthermore, as competitive players really tend to celebrate the skill of the individual player, I'm worried that they'd potentially reduce TTK to CoD-like levels, for the sake of letting individual players show their skill and potentially have a bigger impact in 12v12 games. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Milocinia]

Alistair Winter, on 16 May 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

Here's an idea. Use the Public Test servers to test out radical stuff like this. Instead of just looking at the figures and spreadsheets and trying to find the best solution through scholastic discourse, just... try it out.

Not only would it be a great way for PGI to test interesting alternative solutions, but I think a lot of players would enjoy the fresh change of pace from having semi-monthly public tests with completely radical, game changing ideas.

For example, it would be cool to try out completely different rules for how ECM and LRM works. And it would be cool to try out completely new rules for how single heat sinks work, to make them a viable alternative to DHS builds for certain mechs. (e.g. much higher capacity, but slower cooldown)

That being said, I'm not sure the comp teams will have an idea that most hardcore Battletech fans will like. It seems like a lot of competitive players don't really have a lot of nostalgia when it comes to Battletech or older Mechwarrior games. Furthermore, as competitive players really tend to celebrate the skill of the individual player, I'm worried that they'd potentially reduce TTK to CoD-like levels, for the sake of letting individual players show their skill and potentially have a bigger impact in 12v12 games. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

This opinion of comp players and their gameplay styles is exactly how I feel too.

"Comp" has become too much about twitch gameplay and less about slow reaction times but intelligent thinking and gameplay. This is why I preferred a niche MMORPG over WoW and all the other, it's why I used to like WarRock back in the day, it's why I liked APB:Reloaded and it's why I like MWO.

I'm too old, fat and slow to keep up with the CoD generation.

Edited by Kyocera, 16 May 2015 - 06:18 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Sable, on 16 May 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

NOOOOOOO way screw the "competitive" players. They have ruined every single pvp game i've ever played. Take League of Legends for example, some super good competitive guy would master a champion and wreck everybody with his skill. Next thing you know completely absurd changes would come to that champion that wouldn't make any sense to normal players. I would stare at the patch notes in confusion because that champion wasn't even that good and now it got nerfed? I'd have to go looking in the forum for some explanation. Turns out the devs would even admit they might have overnerfed certain champions.

I don't want the same garbage happening here. When i listen to the no guts no galaxy podcast i disagree with half the stuff those guys talk about. They exist in a completely different mindset (almost a different reality) with whats good for the game. And i'm glad PGI hasn't listened to them very often and done their own thing up to this point. Guess i'll take a break til i get my cauldron born, maybe by then they'll fix some of this nonsense by then.

Exactly, thats the issue with balancing around the 1337 crowd. THen, if they balance around the scrub platoons, everything gets over buffed.

Buff around the average player and things usually end better. Goods will always make stuff work well and seem OP. Scrubs can make even an amazing item seem like ****. Aim average, then stuff seems normal...

Not to mention the 1337 comp crowd just play 1 or 2 styles and everything ends up being changed to fit that meta form...

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 16 May 2015 - 06:24 PM.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 16 May 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

I wouldn't strictly hand it off to the comp groups.

They would've argued for different/harsher quirks for the Victor back when it was the meta.

I'm not saying that they can't help - because they have some idea, but you can't hand all the keys and expect perfect/intended results either. (I'm also not saying we should let bad players balance LRMs either, for obvious reasons just as well).

Whatever PGI's doing however, amounts to a random dartboard of balance.

I think the way that I would put it is that we shouldn't necessarily balance around competitive players, but "competent" players.

The distinction here is that all competitive players are competent, but not all competent players are competitive.


Basically, we need people who fulfill the following two conditions:

1. Must have a pretty decent understanding of the game's mechanics. For example, they need to understand that LRMs and lights are not OP, and that ACs aren't OP, or that the IS Large Laser isn't OP. They must also be able to admit things like Clan SRMs being a direct upgrade to IS SRMs, the Mad Cat being the best overall heavy right now, etc.

2. Must actually DESIRE balance, rather than being one of those "real war" types who don't care about making more viable choices. People who say "It's not the mech, it's the pilot" are instantly disqualified from this criteria.


Competitive players are a part of this demographic, but they're not the entirety of it.

Edited by FupDup, 16 May 2015 - 06:53 PM.

[Xetelian]

Sorry. Having a good team or an active community doesn't make you geniuses on balance.

I play this game a lot does that mean I should get to lower PPC heat?

[luxebo]

VompoVompatti, on 16 May 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

What do you base that on?
What makes a comp group less bias than any other group?
What makes their ideas better?

Ol' Fup said everything I would've said but better.

FupDup, on 16 May 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

I think the way that I would put it is that we shouldn't necessarily balance around competitive players, but "competent" players.
The distinction here is that all competitive players are competent, but not all competent players are competitive.
Basically, we need people who fulfill the following two conditions:
1. Must have a pretty decent understanding of the game's mechanics. For example, they need to understand that LRMs and lights are not OP, and that ACs aren't OP, or that the IS Large Laser isn't OP. They must also be able to admit things like Clan SRMs being a direct upgrade to IS SRMs, the Mad Cat being the best overall heavy right now, etc.
2. Must actually DESIRE balance, rather than being one of those "real war" types who don't care about making more viable choices. People who say "It's not the mech, it's the pilot" are instantly disqualified from this criteria.
Competitive players are a part of this demographic, but they're not the entirety of it.

Continued to address Vompo: We can obviously have those polls we've been having for Founders/Phoenix, but there are gonna be some trolls that would ask to make JJs be able to top up to the very top of HPG, ask for an extra set of Timber A pods on the opposite shoulder, and then ask for this mech:

Edited by luxebo, 16 May 2015 - 10:12 PM.

[QuantumButler]

It's too hard, why bother?

[BearFlag]

LordKnightFandragon, on 16 May 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

I would love to give weapon balancing a wack ha. Messing with numbers is fun.

You should. It's ALL about numbers. There must be a way to factor in and weight the variables to create a formulaic approach to mech 'strength(s)'. With such a number(s) you'd have a guideline for modifying it.

[lsp]

Kyocera, on 16 May 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Totally disagree.

Am I right in thinking that the "comp" players were part of reason why we had tiered mechs and all this quirk rubbish?

Comp players, min/maxers and meta chasers have no part in balancing any component of any game.

If you don't min/max, you really have no business in a mechwarrior game. Atleast not one that includes a mechlab, so all of them. Except the mod MW LL.

[Adiuvo]

Kyocera, on 16 May 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Totally disagree.

Am I right in thinking that the "comp" players were part of reason why we had tiered mechs and all this quirk rubbish?

Comp players, min/maxers and meta chasers have no part in balancing any component of any game.

Nope. That was actually casual players/lore lovers. They are the ones that argued for stock focused quirks.

[Nightshade24]

luxebo, on 16 May 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

Have EmP, SJR, 228th BW, CSJx, etc make the balancing.

Not whoever is doing it atm, whoever that is is not balancing, that group needs to be sent to another place, like improving maps or CW or anything else.

The top teams know what to change about balancing, and nerfing already underused IS mechs (and Clan mechs have well, less usability again) is NOT the way to go.

I do not think this is a good idea, with the meta mindset of all of them We will never see missiles again, machine guns and flamers will probably be removed from game and only way to get them is buying mechs who have em stock. (kinda like std 60 engine from urbanmech). Things like difference between clan and IS ballsitics will be removed so they are all uniformed.

That my idea. Also what prevents someone who played less then a few hours of the game to join this unit and suddenly have his words as law? And whose bright idea was it to select only the english major speaking units into the list?

I tell you want we need. we need a Player council of both Meta, Competetive, semi meta/competetive. A pinch of TT and BT fans, a pinch of old MW fans, and some nom meta players.

Because I want this game to still have connections to it's roots. There's a reason I play this instead of titanfall or Hawken.
I want the non comp players to balance out the comp players because I do not want a form of elitism over our ballancing because the meta players want to nerf all the 'bad' weapons to the point no sane person would use it (kinda like how the flamer is bad...) and to buff the meta weapons to make a e sport meta slug feast of who can pack more lasers and Gauss.

Sorry if you consider yourself a meta player and read this as an insult. Perhaps your lower on the totem pole of meta-ness and at least like to take not the toppest of mechs out there like a direwolf or a jagermech or a mad dog or actually like missiles.

[Adiuvo]

Sable, on 16 May 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

NOOOOOOO way screw the "competitive" players. They have ruined every single pvp game i've ever played. Take League of Legends for example, some super good competitive guy would master a champion and wreck everybody with his skill. Next thing you know completely absurd changes would come to that champion that wouldn't make any sense to normal players. I would stare at the patch notes in confusion because that champion wasn't even that good and now it got nerfed? I'd have to go looking in the forum for some explanation. Turns out the devs would even admit they might have overnerfed certain champions.

I don't want the same garbage happening here. When i listen to the no guts no galaxy podcast i disagree with half the stuff those guys talk about. They exist in a completely different mindset (almost a different reality) with whats good for the game. And i'm glad PGI hasn't listened to them very often and done their own thing up to this point. Guess i'll take a break til i get my cauldron born, maybe by then they'll fix some of this nonsense by then.

If a pro was able to wreck with a champ to the point where it was considered unbalanced, then obviously that champ was actually good and just required some skill to use effectively.

NGNG has nothing to do with the competitive scene. Literally, nothing.

[Nightshade24]

lsp, on 16 May 2015 - 11:37 PM, said:

If you don't min/max, you really have no business in a mechwarrior game. Atleast not one that includes a mechlab, so all of them. Except the mod MW LL.

Not min-maxing is always a good thing in the MW games.

For eg in MW4 Mercs. The 'meta' there is an assault with max jumpjets and between 3 to 6 ER PPC's / Gauss rifles and ECM and possibly LAMS but less then a ton of armour.

I still manage to beat them in stock mechs xD

Reason why I do stock or stock+ builds in MW: O.

Nothing says "Stop bragging and STFU" like killing a person in a stock/stock+ stalker or a stock clan mech when the enemy is boasting for extreme performance and elite builds. As well as doing more damage/ kills/ kill assist/ spotting / match score then they do. So funny watching them turn red and rage a stock Mad Dog C killed there expensive duel gauss/ ac 20 jager cheese...

[Adiuvo]

The majority of posters here don't seem to get what competitive players want. You have these odd ideas in your head that are based off of assumptions.

Competitive players want options. it would be nice to be able to use more a few weapon systems. It would be nice to be able to use more than a few mechs. It would be nice for there to be more than a few viable playstyles. Comp players don't chase the 'meta.' Top tier groups set it by realizing what the best options are given what PGI provides. Things don't suddenly become good because a top tier group wills it. PGI is the one that decides that.

[Adiuvo]

FupDup, on 16 May 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

I think the way that I would put it is that we shouldn't necessarily balance around competitive players, but "competent" players.

The distinction here is that all competitive players are competent, but not all competent players are competitive.


Basically, we need people who fulfill the following two conditions:

1. Must have a pretty decent understanding of the game's mechanics. For example, they need to understand that LRMs and lights are not OP, and that ACs aren't OP, or that the IS Large Laser isn't OP. They must also be able to admit things like Clan SRMs being a direct upgrade to IS SRMs, the Mad Cat being the best overall heavy right now, etc.

2. Must actually DESIRE balance, rather than being one of those "real war" types who don't care about making more viable choices. People who say "It's not the mech, it's the pilot" are instantly disqualified from this criteria.


Competitive players are a part of this demographic, but they're not the entirety of it.

You're 100% correct. Top tier competitive players are all competent, but like you said it's not like all non comps are brain dead.

Non competent players should have zero say in balance. This game isn't very difficult mechanics wise, short of light mechs. It's 90% positioning, which is all based on decision making, and thus understanding. If you aren't good at MWO, you really don't understand it.

[Templar Dane]

Nightshade24, on 16 May 2015 - 11:49 PM, said:

Not min-maxing is always a good thing in the MW games.

For eg in MW4 Mercs. The 'meta' there is an assault with max jumpjets and between 3 to 6 ER PPC's / Gauss rifles and ECM and possibly LAMS but less then a ton of armour.

I still manage to beat them in stock mechs xD

Reason why I do stock or stock+ builds in MW: O.

Nothing says "Stop bragging and STFU" like killing a person in a stock/stock+ stalker or a stock clan mech when the enemy is boasting for extreme performance and elite builds. As well as doing more damage/ kills/ kill assist/ spotting / match score then they do. So funny watching them turn red and rage a stock Mad Dog C killed there expensive duel gauss/ ac 20 jager cheese...

I totally remember the meta being absurd numbers of ERLLs.......

[Nightshade24]

Adiuvo, on 16 May 2015 - 11:46 PM, said:

If a pro was able to wreck with a champ to the point where it was considered unbalanced, then obviously that champ was actually good and just required some skill to use effectively.

NGNG has nothing to do with the competitive scene. Literally, nothing.

Besides the fact the majority of NGNG builds are comp?

Have you seen them take a hellbringer with any iconic weapons it had?
Or a urbanmech under 40 kph?
Or anything?

[Mystere]

BearFlag, on 16 May 2015 - 11:13 PM, said:

You should. It's ALL about numbers. There must be a way to factor in and weight the variables to create a formulaic approach to mech 'strength(s)'. With such a number(s) you'd have a guideline for modifying it.

<steps from the shadows>
Psst! There are over 100 variables involved.
<steps back into the shadows>

lsp, on 16 May 2015 - 11:37 PM, said:

If you don't min/max, you really have no business in a mechwarrior game.

What? Even those who just want to play for fun and have no interest in being stat whores?

[Nightshade24]

Adiuvo, on 16 May 2015 - 11:49 PM, said:

The majority of posters here don't seem to get what competitive players want. You have these odd ideas in your head that are based off of assumptions.

Competitive players want options. it would be nice to be able to use more a few weapon systems. It would be nice to be able to use more than a few mechs. It would be nice for there to be more than a few viable playstyles. Comp players don't chase the 'meta.' Top tier groups set it by realizing what the best options are given what PGI provides. Things don't suddenly become good because a top tier group wills it. PGI is the one that decides that.

I doubt that, they hate options to bits.

They cry when a mechs 50% quirk is nerfed because it prevents an OP weapon from remaining OP on it while giving the mech more options.

They cry LRM's / SRM's are useless even though with just a single spotter they can be the most devastating thign on the battlefield.

LOOK at the game 2 years ago, LRM's nearly 5 times more damage + splash damage and had a faster velocity and meta players STILL considered them useless! and this was BEFORE ecm.

If a single LRM 20 killing a medium and some heavy mechs in 1 salvo is not meta to them then I do not know what will make it meta. Even if they use everything "OP" that an LRM had lore wise (lock, fire, then forget as the LRM's keep track without you, explosive or inferno ammo, faster velocity, reduced spread to near pinpoint, etc...)

to them the majority of weapons will NEVER be meta or good for them. I checked with numbers of meta units and meta players in the past and now even when the "non meta" weapon gone better and they still stubbornly say it's useless because "it spreads damage" or "it needs lock" or "crit chance does nothing" or "DPS means nothing." etc.

if Meta players want options and viarity, they have to actually pay attention to the options and viarity now.

[Nightshade24]

lordtzar, on 17 May 2015 - 12:19 AM, said:

I totally remember the meta being absurd numbers of ERLLs.......

only in MW2-3. While some MW2 games was Medium pulse lasers because for some reasons those had more DPS per med pulse then 10 MG's and even then they delt 0 heat for some reason and had 100 extra range.


In MW4 mercs at least er large lasers is as meta then as duel AC 20 jagers here. it isn't the top of the ice burge, but it's at least at the surface.

What was poular back then also was troll builds, like having a mech with 4 x Long toms 1 shot killing the "Ghost snippers" or "jump sinpers" as they were called back then by artillery bombarding an area where they thought they are safe.

or a long bow with 4 x Arrow IV thunders to 1 shot kill any ghost sniper if they are narced.



My personal fave meta buster was a long bow with (mektek) 6 x inferno SRM 4, 4 x inferno SRM 6, and 2 flamers.

That thing in 1 alpha knocks even a 100 ton mech with advance gyro onto the ground and the second volley shuts down any mech, even a supper nova (or, which I tested, a behemoth with 52 double heatsinks worth of heat eff). in 2-3 alphas.

Usually I cna keep stun locking them there. I love getting like 10 enemies all grouped up together and over heat them and such then after torturing them for a bit I use 1 alpha to start a domino effect of mech-death explosion that caused more heat and critical damge to near by mechs. often ahving half of them ejecting due to heat (force eject) and the others blown to bits to the power of 5 fusion nuclear reactors blowing up!

I am so evil... never trust me in a stalker with 4 inferno rockets, 2 inferno LRM 20's, and 1 Inferno Long tom load out either...


Did I mention I like playing with fire?