183 replies to this topic

[Greenjulius]

Hotthedd, on 05 July 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

Actually the reason is that if it can be balanced WITHOUT deviating from the very game they base MW:O on, then they should not change those rules. IMO, most of what is broken about this game is BECAUSE they deviated from BattleTech so much.

Sometimes I think CoD kiddies think that all mecha games are super cool and want them to all be the same.

The rules DO actually translate to a FPS game, but too many twitchy shortcuts have been taken. Maybe some people are not bright enough to figure out how to translate the rules properly?

How can the system be "convoluted" AND WORK, "with significant balance issues"?
Is that like being tall, and short?

First off, please keep this civil. Personal attacks are not necessary, because the only thing I said was, "TT purists." Would you not consider yourself one?

I on the other hand am not a "CoD kiddy." I don't play the games and despise them.

The system IS convoluted. Have any newcomer try the game out, and get their reaction. I've tried to bring in numerous friends to MWO and gotten the same answer every time. "It's too hard to figure out everything." "There's too much of a learning curve." "The game is too hard."

Convoluted and "works" are not antonyms. It works, because once you figure it out, it's easy to get into and play. The game has solid bones, but balance is not good right now. Clan mechs in TT were flat out better than IS mechs until mixed tech muddied the waters. BV attempted to address this by assigning Clan mechs higher BV. The reason PGI has been slowly nerfing clan mechs is because the metrics show exactly this: Clan mechs are better survivors and killers.

Unless we are ready to admit this, give up and do a 10v12 matchup or something similar, PGI will just keep nerfing clan mechs and buffing IS mechs until they reach a point where they are happy with the balance too.

[Pjwned]

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

When your LFE has the same penalties will it be fair too...or will you all ask for some other set of rules for it?

Whatever additional penalty cXL engines get (which they should get because the penalty is not enough now) is fair game for LFEs too because both engine types have the same crit slot profile. I will say that example of a Timberwolf moving as if it had a 225 engine though, that is really dumb and a system like that is also extremely biased against heavier mechs.

Edited by Pjwned, 05 July 2015 - 01:59 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Greenjulius, since MW2 sold more copies than MW3 and MW4 combined, including all the sequals/addon packs, and it followed the TT rules far more than MW3 or MW4 did, I would have to say that yes, it actually WAS the reason they did not do so well, as both MW3 and MW4 had better campaigns, better graphics and were much easier games to play than MW2 was. Funny how that works out isn't it? When the follow up titles vary from the core mechanics, they failed, and yet people somehow believe that adherence to those core mechanics is a problem. Again, funny how that works out isn't it?

Quicksilver, I did NOT make the selections PGI did, I would NOT have made those selections and I would have stuck with a far closer to TT rule set than PGI did. Again, the most successful of the MW titles followed those, the least successful did not follow those, and the farther you get from them, the worst the titles did, see MA and MA2 for further proof of this, as making the game console friendly and ignoring TT except for some names killed it totally.

BV never worked, ever, it was SO successful that BV was upgraded to BV2 and before BV2 was even completed they realized, hey, this won't work, and started on BV3, which was never finished because they realized it was a lost cause, BV does not work, and that is with a game where the only variables are random dice rolls to determine if you hit. The REST of the equation never balances out because it's a PnP game and they are NOT designed to be balanced. MW and MW2 weren't balanced, the first was strictly 3025 IS and the second was strictly Clan but they were still not balanced, because they went with the TT rules, and guess what, those games were FUN!

We had MW3 and MW4 only due to the success of MW2, GBL and MW2:Mercs, but MW3 and MW4 never followed that success, it never had the playerbase and they stopped making the title because MS couldn't figure out where they screwed up. We told them, lots of times, but they kept listening to people like you who claim that that wasn't the problem, TT rules were bs and needed to be ditched, 'for balance, core rules ignore!'...yeah, we see EXACTLY how well that worked out, not just once but multiple times with MW3, MW4, MA and MA2, each title getting further and further from TT until there was nothing resembling it but some names with MA and MA2. Works GREAT! PGI should listen to you folks who keep saying this, look at the HISTORY of the MW titles, and ignore you totally, since your ideas have done nothing but ruin the franchise when implemented, every SINGLE time to date.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 01:27 PM, said:

Quicksilver, I did NOT make the selections PGI did.

I meant the fact that you think mixed tech along with Jihad breaks the game more so you choose to ignore it as part of BT kinda like how Indiana Jones nerds ignore the 4th one, sort of similar but not quite (Jihad is defendable, the 4th IJ is not). It was an assumption on my part so pardon me if it was wrong.

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 01:27 PM, said:

Greenjulius, since MW2 sold more copies than MW3 and MW4 combined, including all the sequals/addon packs, and it followed the TT rules far more than MW3 or MW4 did, I would have to say that yes, it actually WAS the reason they did not do so well

Correlation does not equal causation. You can speculate quite a bit, but to say that is the main contributing factor is quite a leap. Lest we forget how successful Mechassault was and it ignored both lore and rules.

I am curious where you got the sales information from though, since I had been curious about that before.

[Andi Nagasia]

so is everyone saying that TT Rules need to be followed to the T?

[Ultimax]

Hotthedd, on 05 July 2015 - 09:42 AM, said:

That (a game based on BattleTech) is not just "what I want", it is what IGP/PGI used to separate me from a good bit of my money.

I get that SOME things do not translate well (actually, they COULD, but it would take too much work), but the number of engine criticals before an engine is destroyed is NOT one of them. It is the risk you take with an I.S. XL engine.

There are plenty of good ideas in this thread, but adding the number of crits necessary to destroy an engine is not one of them.

No it's not the risk I have take.

I play my clan mechs instead, and get the best of everything.

[Hotthedd]

Greenjulius, on 05 July 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

First off, please keep this civil. Personal attacks are not necessary, because the only thing I said was, "TT purists." Would you not consider yourself one?

I on the other hand am not a "CoD kiddy." I don't play the games and despise them.

The system IS convoluted. Have any newcomer try the game out, and get their reaction. I've tried to bring in numerous friends to MWO and gotten the same answer every time. "It's too hard to figure out everything." "There's too much of a learning curve." "The game is too hard."

Convoluted and "works" are not antonyms. It works, because once you figure it out, it's easy to get into and play. The game has solid bones, but balance is not good right now. Clan mechs in TT were flat out better than IS mechs until mixed tech muddied the waters. BV attempted to address this by assigning Clan mechs higher BV. The reason PGI has been slowly nerfing clan mechs is because the metrics show exactly this: Clan mechs are better survivors and killers.

Unless we are ready to admit this, give up and do a 10v12 matchup or something similar, PGI will just keep nerfing clan mechs and buffing IS mechs until they reach a point where they are happy with the balance too.

You implied that "TT purists" do not realize that the game they are playing on their PC is not a board game with dice. I find that insulting. I did not call you a "CoD kiddie", I was pointing out that that group ALSO would have no problem trashing the BattleTech universe altogether "for balance".

We disagree on the meaning of "works". Every deviation from BattleTech has caused problems. (PPFLD is not part of BT, nor is every weapon hitting the same reticle) These deviations have caused problems, the fixes to these problems have caused problems, and the nerfs/buffs/nerfs band-**** have caused problems. If not for all of that, MW:O wouldn't BE so convoluted. We have PoorDubs and ghost heat precisely BECAUSE PGI didn't stick with BT mechanics.

So, now we need more fixes. I am simply stating that deviating once again from BT will not fix the problems, but make them worse.

[Greenjulius]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 01:27 PM, said:

Greenjulius, since MW2 sold more copies than MW3 and MW4 combined, including all the sequals/addon packs, and it followed the TT rules far more than MW3 or MW4 did, I would have to say that yes, it actually WAS the reason they did not do so well, as both MW3 and MW4 had better campaigns, better graphics and were much easier games to play than MW2 was. Funny how that works out isn't it? When the follow up titles vary from the core mechanics, they failed, and yet people somehow believe that adherence to those core mechanics is a problem. Again, funny how that works out isn't it?

Quicksilver, I did NOT make the selections PGI did, I would NOT have made those selections and I would have stuck with a far closer to TT rule set than PGI did. Again, the most successful of the MW titles followed those, the least successful did not follow those, and the farther you get from them, the worst the titles did, see MA and MA2 for further proof of this, as making the game console friendly and ignoring TT except for some names killed it totally.

BV never worked, ever, it was SO successful that BV was upgraded to BV2 and before BV2 was even completed they realized, hey, this won't work, and started on BV3, which was never finished because they realized it was a lost cause, BV does not work, and that is with a game where the only variables are random dice rolls to determine if you hit. The REST of the equation never balances out because it's a PnP game and they are NOT designed to be balanced. MW and MW2 weren't balanced, the first was strictly 3025 IS and the second was strictly Clan but they were still not balanced, because they went with the TT rules, and guess what, those games were FUN!

We had MW3 and MW4 only due to the success of MW2, GBL and MW2:Mercs, but MW3 and MW4 never followed that success, it never had the playerbase and they stopped making the title because MS couldn't figure out where they screwed up. We told them, lots of times, but they kept listening to people like you who claim that that wasn't the problem, TT rules were bs and needed to be ditched, 'for balance, core rules ignore!'...yeah, we see EXACTLY how well that worked out, not just once but multiple times with MW3, MW4, MA and MA2, each title getting further and further from TT until there was nothing resembling it but some names with MA and MA2. Works GREAT! PGI should listen to you folks who keep saying this, look at the HISTORY of the MW titles, and ignore you totally, since your ideas have done nothing but ruin the franchise when implemented, every SINGLE time to date.

Or, it could have had to do with MW2 being one of the most impressive products of it's day, and BT was crossing into the mainstream at the time. I seem to remember there was a even a Battletech cartoon. How's that for mainstream?

MW3 and 4 were both good games, but times changed, and BT didn't have the appeal that it did in the mid nineties.

And how many people are still playing TT compared to 20 years ago?

And a quick comparison to put this whole sales discussion in perspective:

Starcraft sold 11 million copies.
Starcraft 2: WoL has sold 6 million copies. You can add at least 1.1 million copies from Heart of the Swarm, as Blizzard has not released data since the first month. It is assumed to be much lower than WoL however, as the player base is much smaller now than at WoL's peak.

Source

Does this mean Blizzard did something wrong, and Starcraft 2 is not a good game? No. SC2 was generally a higher rated game than SC1, but that didn't keep it from selling less copies. It just illustrates the point that times change. League of Legends and DOTA 2 cannibalized the RTS market, and popularized the MOBA genre that seems to have infected gaming today.

Mechwarrior is NOT the same franchise it was 20 years ago.

Hotthedd, on 05 July 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

You implied that "TT purists" do not realize that the game they are playing on their PC is not a board game with dice. I find that insulting. I did not call you a "CoD kiddie", I was pointing out that that group ALSO would have no problem trashing the BattleTech universe altogether "for balance".

We disagree on the meaning of "works". Every deviation from BattleTech has caused problems. (PPFLD is not part of BT, nor is every weapon hitting the same reticle) These deviations have caused problems, the fixes to these problems have caused problems, and the nerfs/buffs/nerfs band-**** have caused problems. If not for all of that, MW:O wouldn't BE so convoluted. We have PoorDubs and ghost heat precisely BECAUSE PGI didn't stick with BT mechanics.

So, now we need more fixes. I am simply stating that deviating once again from BT will not fix the problems, but make them worse.

I'm sorry you were insulted by my comment, "TT purists forget they aren't playing TT."

However, I believe my point still stands. TT rules have never been translated into a Mechwarrior first person game because developers have always tried to find balance. TT once again tried to us BV to find that balance.

We'll see how PGI decides to use their own internal BV system like Russ stated in the most recent Town Hall.

Edited by Greenjulius, 05 July 2015 - 02:23 PM.

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 July 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

You do realize most if not all successful FPS games ARE symmetric right? That is why BT rules are never fully translated nor is BV and is the reason things HAVE to get changed to achieve balance.

...or we could have asymmetric balance instead of alphastrikewarrior Nascar online.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 05 July 2015 - 03:09 PM, said:

...or we could have asymmetric balance instead of alphastrikewarrior Nascar online.

NASCAR and alphastrikes have nothing to do with asymmetric balance. NASCAR is a result of trying to flank teams on smaller maps. Alphastrikes are a result of FLD being so important in FPS (you won't ever change this).

[Ultimax]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 July 2015 - 03:16 PM, said:

NASCAR and alphastrikes have nothing to do with asymmetric balance. NASCAR is a result of trying to flank teams on smaller maps. Alphastrikes are a result of FLD being so important in FPS (you won't ever change this).

Not that I know Hotthedd's preferences, but I'm often amazed when the people who claim to hate NASCAR (i.e. flanking) also claim to hate humping rocks.


I think for a section of the playerbase, they want to start matches at 250m with no rocks & no real movement "fur muh brawls".

Edited by Ultimatum X, 05 July 2015 - 03:24 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimatum X, on 05 July 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

Not that I know Hotthedd's preferences, but I'm often amazed when the people who claim to hate NASCAR (i.e. flanking) also claim to hate humping rocks.

I think for a section of the playerbase, they want to start matches at 250m with no rocks & no real movement "fur muh brawls".

Honestly I'd love to see all of them be a thing, but that is partially due to map design than anything.

I do miss muh brawls though, back in the days of the Splatapult and Boomapult.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 July 2015 - 03:26 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

I'm a bit confused here...

Because you didn't understand what I wrote.

Quote

How can I possibly add MORE weapons and the ability to do more damage if I downgrade from an XL to a Std engine, in either a Clan or IS Mech, if the XL engines are equal in that side torso destruction doesn't cause death for IS or Clan?

How indeed? Lets assume I've been around a while, and while my opinions are not always shared, I'm not an idiot. Given that, is't it more likely that you misread that?

You can downgrade an XL engine to a lower rated XL engine. Thus, IS mechs have the ability to take a smaller engine and pack on more guns. Understand?

XL side torso destruction in this instance doesn't cause death to either IS or Clan. However, side torso destruction has heat and speed penalties. Lets say 20% speed loss, and the current Clan XL heat penalty.

Quote

XLs save weight, a lot of it, so I can add MORE weapons and therefore increase my damage output, and that works for both Clan AND IS. You DO realize that allowing the Clan Omni's to switch from XL to Std without changing their rating would NOT work very well, right? Have you even looked at the tonnages involved? I really don't think you have, not if you are making this post in ANYTHING but a totally satirical manner, because there's NO possible way you meant it seriously...is there?

OR YOU'RE JUST MISREADING IT, because I'm not an idiot, and I don't post in a satirical manner. Because there is a severe penalty for side torso destruction, the Clan Omni could switch to a Standard Engine if he wished to avoid those penalties on ST loss if he felt so inclined. Maybe he wouldn't; probably wouldn't. Doesn't matter, that's not the point.

The point is, you're buffing IS XL's and nerfing Clan XL's at the same time, to make them completely equal.

Quote

And this entire proposal of McGral's totally removes ANY reason what so ever for ANY IS Mech to ever use a Std Engine, the is just no downside to it compared to the weight savings which means more guns for damage output. Yeah, an XL that doesn't mean instadeath when I lose a side torso in my Atlas, my King Crab? WTBF kind of stupid ass question is that, HELL YES I'D DO IT! Who the hell wouldnt'? The ONLY reason not to take an XL would be because you wanted an AC20 in the side torso. That's it, nothing else would be impacted by this, and it would allow Gauss in ST with an XL to be SAFE, which is something many of us would love. My dual Gauss Jager would be faster AND able to carry better back up weapons.

Don't you already run an XL in a dual Gauss Jager? I certainly do.

But anyways, lose the ranty hyperbolic exaggeration. Taking an XL engine still results in a severe heat and speed penalty on it's destruction. Regardless, I bet most IS heavies and assaults will take one. So? Why is that a problem? How does that give them an advantage over the Clan XL? It doesn't. That's the whole god damned point, after all.

This removes the Clan XL advantage completely.

Quote

Yeah, great idea McGral, lets totally remove the Std engine from the game, it serves no useful function anyway right?

It would serve a more useful function that Standard Heat Sinks currently do, by a large margin. Maybe you personally wouldn't use it, maybe most wouldn't. Some would, though, either to save crit slots, or to survive ST loss without penalty.


The problem, here, Kristov, is very simple:

1) We need to balance Clan and IS mechs. This is non-negotiable. We WILL NOT have uneven numbers, nor will we have battlevalue.

2) The single largest upset in IS vs. Clan balance is the engines. Clan XL engines add all the wonder you scream about above (Atlases and King Crabs with XL's, OH NO!) - they allow Clan Mechs to run light engines AND not worry about side torso destruction. And this isn't much of a flavor difference, it's just a flat out massive advantage in Clan favour.

3) The only other balancing method we have, IS vs. Clan, is weapons and quirks.

So, we can either:

Nerf Clan XL's (heat and speed penalty on ST destruction) and simultaneously buffing IS XL's (speed and heat penalty on ST destruction, but no instadeath), then minorly lean on quirks and weapons,

or

Leave Clan's with a major engine and thus durability+loadout advantage, and thus massively lean on nerfing Clan weapons/quirking the ever-loving hell out of IS mechs to compensate.

I for one don't want to see Clan weapons nerfed even harder, particularly not the ballistics.


Do you really think you'll get better IS vs. Clan balance by keeping the Clan XL advantage and adding so very much more in IS weaponry to compensate?

Do you feel the end result - that IS weapons+quirks would be objectively, entirely and wholly flat out better than Clan weapons+quirks - is more along the lines of the lore? Because that is, ultimately, the only other option. If Clans have a durability advantage, IS needs something to counter that.

Edited by Wintersdark, 05 July 2015 - 03:51 PM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 05 July 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

When initially designing the mech they are, but I do wonder if the game would automatically reduce agility if just a speed penalty was added. It would make for an interesting experiment.

I believe the legging system does exactly that.

If you want to try it, run your mech @ 40kph (however close you can), and compare how agile it is when it is legged (forced to be @ 40kph).

It becomes more self-evident when you're "stunned" @ 15kph... and although this will be "changed" in an upcoming patch, it's already there.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 July 2015 - 05:56 PM.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Mcgral18, on 04 July 2015 - 11:33 PM, said:

I know...I used a bad word. But, I want to pitch an idea and see what the Forums think of it.

With PGI's upcoming "significant" balance pass, I'm wondering what they've come up with.

Honestly, anything short of a toilet flush with a handle jiggle won't fix the issues they painted themselves into a corner with. Any more "balancing" with the new mechs, tech, and so on from here on out are going to cause more problems than they're going to solve, and quirks are only the Tylenol to mask the pain of the cancer "Balancing" has become.

Hopefully they decide to reinvent their balancing wheel with this new proposed "Battle Value," abandon a lot of their band-aid solutions and shed some light on if they even know what it's going to do or how its going to function to the people paying for their overhead costs.

[Mcgral18]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

And this entire proposal of McGral's totally removes ANY reason what so ever for ANY IS Mech to ever use a Std Engine, the is just no downside to it compared to the weight savings which means more guns for damage output. Yeah, an XL that doesn't mean instadeath when I lose a side torso in my Atlas, my King Crab? WTBF kind of stupid ass question is that, HELL YES I'D DO IT! Who the hell wouldnt'? The ONLY reason not to take an XL would be because you wanted an AC20 in the side torso. That's it, nothing else would be impacted by this, and it would allow Gauss in ST with an XL to be SAFE, which is something many of us would love. My dual Gauss Jager would be faster AND able to carry better back up weapons.

Yeah, great idea McGral, lets totally remove the Std engine from the game, it serves no useful function anyway right?

You like having a Jaegermech with the speed and firepower of an Urbanmech? Because that's what you're left with when you have 1 ST.


Typical XL250ish and 60-70 rounds? A 260 engine moves you at 71 Kph, half of that is 35.5 Kph. Same as when you're legged, in this case.

Gauss means it won't have the heat issues of DHS becoming SHS. Any energy build will lose any sustainable firepower, and will not be able to run.



Those are downsides, believe it or not. They're simply better than not dying outright. They just delay the inevitable.

Roadkill, on 05 July 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

I think you're trying to normalize in the wrong direction. Don't make IS XLs better, make Clan XLs worse.

Ignore Clans for a moment. For IS Mechs, it can be a pretty tough choice. XL or Standard? Do you want the extra weight, or do you want to be able to survive? That means that the IS XL and Standard are pretty well balanced.

Now toss Clans into the mix. Since the IS XL and Standard are pretty well balanced, you shouldn't change either of them. You should change the Clan XL until it comes into balance with them. Realistically there's no way to do that without just saying that Clan Mechs also explode with one ST loss. They would still be better than IS XLs, though, due to using fewer crit slots.

But I'm guessing no one will go for that solution.

This does both; make IS XLs better, and make Clan XLs worse. Still better than their IS counterparts.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Sales numbers were from Activision, MicroSoft and various reporting agencies/magazines over the years.

And you keep saying there is a problem, I keep saying there isn't.

And that is the problem in the end.

[Pjwned]

Gyrok, on 05 July 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

But IS mechs can change endo/ferro.

LFE + Endo = CXL

Most Clan omnimechs do not have endo.

If an omnimech is considered sub-par because it doesn't have the mandatory endo steel upgrade then that shows a problem with upgrades more than it shows a problem with mechs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 July 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

And you keep saying there is a problem, I keep saying there isn't.

There is, the proof of that was the dominance of the god tier robots before quirks. Without those quirks the IS would be relegated to relying on the Misery and Griffin 2N as their best robots. Lights would also be even worse than they already are. One of the major sources of the bad parity has always been the engines. The weapons just piled onto that disparity.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 July 2015 - 07:13 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Mcgral18, on 05 July 2015 - 06:38 PM, said:

You like having a Jaegermech with the speed and firepower of an Urbanmech? Because that's what you're left with when you have 1 ST. Typical XL250ish and 60-70 rounds? A 260 engine moves you at 71 Kph, half of that is 35.5 Kph. Same as when you're legged, in this case. Gauss means it won't have the heat issues of DHS becoming SHS. Any energy build will lose any sustainable firepower, and will not be able to run. Those are downsides, believe it or not. They're simply better than not dying outright. They just delay the inevitable. This does both; make IS XLs better, and make Clan XLs worse. Still better than their IS counterparts.

Again, I don't see a problem with the state of parity as it stands currently, the Clans and the IS are pretty evenly matched, no side has the clear advantage, repeatedly we've seen this proven out in CW, the only mode where we can clearly see the division between IS and Clan Tech. Outside of CW, there's no issues with Clan vs IS Tech, we don't see 75% or greater of the population dropping in only Clan Mechs in solo/group non-CW ques, it's simply NOT an issue in the game, despite SOME people constantly harping that it is.

Again, we've got a vocal minority claiming there is an issue where none exists, there is NO reason to make changes that aren't needed to fix a problem that doesn't exist.