772 replies to this topic

[Chef Kerensky]

Veev, on 11 September 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

K/D should not be the only focus... Thats the reason PGI has never gotten role warfare right nor managed to get balance right.

if this were TF2 or Battlefield 2 you'd be right. It's not.

"Kills should not be the only focus in Mechwarrior Online"

Okay. What should be the focus of your average Mechwarrior Online match? PGI can make as many changes as they want and you can continue to pilot your lrm boats or scouting light mechs or tanky assaults or whatever. I'm going to put lasers and gauss on my mech and my team will kill you. The game is fundamentally built around killing mechs.

[MischiefSC]

IraqiWalker, on 11 September 2015 - 08:44 PM, said:

Seriously, what kind of TT did you play? We used to play PVP all the time, and didn't have this "broken" BV system you seem to mention.

Playing with friends /= playing with strangers. Hence why I'm talking about it as PvE as opposed to PvP. Also, more than 1 player per mech, right?

I don't know how else to put this. You're saying that 70% of players will want to play the 0.8 KDR role, where they die most the time without killing anyone, and that only 30% of players will want to play the 1.5 KDR role, and that populations will always be split that way.

Each player playing 4 or more mechs/vehicles/whatever in mostly throw-away situations with people they know and have fun playing with win or lose /= MWO FPS with strangers and 10s of thousands of people, most of whom you don't like and who don't like you.

IS vs Clans never worked in Tournaments well. Use teh Google. Your experience with friends /= how it worked overall.

[Wintersdark]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 09:02 PM, said:

Playing with friends /= playing with strangers. Hence why I'm talking about it as PvE as opposed to PvP. Also, more than 1 player per mech, right?

I don't know how else to put this. You're saying that 70% of players will want to play the 0.8 KDR role, where they die most the time without killing anyone, and that only 30% of players will want to play the 1.5 KDR role, and that populations will always be split that way.

Each player playing 4 or more mechs/vehicles/whatever in mostly throw-away situations with people they know and have fun playing with win or lose /= MWO FPS with strangers and 10s of thousands of people, most of whom you don't like and who don't like you.

IS vs Clans never worked in Tournaments well. Use teh Google. Your experience with friends /= how it worked overall.

Not to get involved in a "How TT Was" argument, but this here is a good example of where a lot of awesome sounding ideas totally fail.

Things that are fun in "friendly games" with friends are absolutely not fun for the bulk of players in an open play-with-strangers environment like MWO, where everyone is playing as they want to play, not as you want them to play.

[MischiefSC]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 11 September 2015 - 08:42 PM, said:

MWO has only one mode? Thats news to me. MBII have several mods just like MWO those. Whats your point?

In MegaMek you can set game whatever you wish for. You can also set that one player control one mek, played many games like this. Of course MegaMek is computer version of table top Battetech and use exact same stats, not sure what hard to get.
Never played MegaMek vs bot and I played it ton, you seams to not regardless what you say, be cause you clearly not know exactly what you are talking about.

You guys seams to be slaves of some stats. How about we remove K/D ratio stat then, so you would stop jerr/king off every night seeing your game profile.
So we can have real W/L stat to do so.

Have you played MW:O? Know anyone who plays it even? Will the new patch change human behavior? My stats are irrelevant - I was a huge fan of Elo instead of the new PSR since win/loss, to me, is more relevant than damage etc. Elo didn't work in MW:O because the significant majority of players only went after KDR and damage and didn't play to the win. We already have the metrics on how the players play overall.

I was talking about MBII. SO get literally 60x as many people to play it as play it now and the only mode to play is Jedi vs Droids. That's what you're talking about; MW:O being an IS vs Clans with 10v12/8v12 environment is exactly that. Introducing Skirmish/Assault/Conquest doesn't change that.

Again; you want to try it? Set a league up. Play private matches with IS vs Clans 10v12 or 8v12 and hold it regularly and see how many people show up. Give it a shot.

Wintersdark, on 11 September 2015 - 09:06 PM, said:

Not to get involved in a "How TT Was" argument, but this here is a good example of where a lot of awesome sounding ideas totally fail.

Things that are fun in "friendly games" with friends are absolutely not fun for the bulk of players in an open play-with-strangers environment like MWO, where everyone is playing as they want to play, not as you want them to play.

Q for absolute T.

[Yokaiko]

Guys post up your matchscore screens, there is a PSR tier on the top now, but I have no idea what it means.

[IraqiWalker]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 09:02 PM, said:

Playing with friends /= playing with strangers. Hence why I'm talking about it as PvE as opposed to PvP. Also, more than 1 player per mech, right?

I don't know how else to put this. You're saying that 70% of players will want to play the 0.8 KDR role, where they die most the time without killing anyone, and that only 30% of players will want to play the 1.5 KDR role, and that populations will always be split that way.

Each player playing 4 or more mechs/vehicles/whatever in mostly throw-away situations with people they know and have fun playing with win or lose /= MWO FPS with strangers and 10s of thousands of people, most of whom you don't like and who don't like you.

IS vs Clans never worked in Tournaments well. Use teh Google. Your experience with friends /= how it worked overall.

I'm talking even in tourneys. Short of stock v stock, we had no problems, and I'm not talking just about 1 person per mech. I'm talking when each one of use fielded more than one company. So about 12 mechs + per player.

When running long term campaigns, that's when it becomes PVE, really.

[MischiefSC]

IraqiWalker, on 11 September 2015 - 09:13 PM, said:

I'm talking even in tourneys. Short of stock v stock, we had no problems, and I'm not talking just about 1 person per mech. I'm talking when each one of use fielded more than one company. So about 12 mechs + per player.

When running long term campaigns, that's when it becomes PVE, really.

*which is what I'm saying*.

If each player is in 1 mech, saying they need to die 20-40% more often than they kill the enemy every match isn't going to get anyone to play.

Also if you played with friends who enjoyed the IS vs Clan balance, great. Google forums from that era and find me all the joy about tournament play and gaming cons.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 09:08 PM, said:

Have you played MW:O? Know anyone who plays it even? Will the new patch change human behavior? My stats are irrelevant - I was a huge fan of Elo instead of the new PSR since win/loss, to me, is more relevant than damage etc. Elo didn't work in MW:O because the significant majority of players only went after KDR and damage and didn't play to the win. We already have the metrics on how the players play overall.

I was talking about MBII. SO get literally 60x as many people to play it as play it now and the only mode to play is Jedi vs Droids. That's what you're talking about; MW:O being an IS vs Clans with 10v12/8v12 environment is exactly that. Introducing Skirmish/Assault/Conquest doesn't change that.

Again; you want to try it? Set a league up. Play private matches with IS vs Clans 10v12 or 8v12 and hold it regularly and see how many people show up. Give it a shot.



Q for absolute T.

Not sure where you troll in the first question, but k/d can be just disabled as in many other games to stop peaple jerr/king off about it all the time. You just can have points or what ever.

Having asymmetrical set up game do not involve only one mode Clans vs IS. Not sure how you came with that. Its not hte case with MBII and would be not with MWO.
The correct number in my judge is 10v16.

Actually I played a lot ISvClan asymmetrically stock set games in MWO. And those games was one of most fun times in MWO ever. Foreseeing you next argue, yes fun on both sides.


Your guys argue about "friendly TT" is very missed, all my TT games was in actually competitive environment.

[wanderer]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 08:10 PM, said:

We just got done going over why 8v12 or 10v12 wouldn't work. It's not the MM, it's creating some sort of artificial control of player populations and getting one group to always play a sub 1.0 KDR role and the other a above 1.0 KDR role, etc. etc.

Right now, we're sitting here in a world where PGI has just decided the entire weapon quirk system gets chucked out the window.

Also, a tiering system where winners who contribute go up and average losers drop ranks.

Keep that tier rank public-showable and I guarantee you, people will only give a flying fig about K/D relative to others in the same tier- and if the norm is getting shot up a lot with wins vs. being a Tier 5 with a high K/D, T5 scrub is getting mocked and T1 guy with the wins is getting praised- and K/D is only going to matter in epeen terms relative to tier rank.

You think otherwise. I can respect that. But you're wrong. The K/D hound is the Rambo, and Rambos inevitably hose things for the team, which means losing (lots), which means scrubdom and mockery from their betters.

Also, if you feel so strange about it, people DO get to have 'Mechs of IS and Clan types. Either way, they're going to have to win lots, and if they're more interested in padding their kill count than winning, it'll be the the underhive for them and the game-winners who rise above the pit of T5 and the limbo of T4.

[Gattsus]

Just delete seismic from the game. Wallhacks do not promote skill / strategic gameplay.

[Yokaiko]

THIS THIS what is THIS

[IraqiWalker]

MischiefSC, on 11 September 2015 - 09:21 PM, said:

*which is what I'm saying*.

If each player is in 1 mech, saying they need to die 20-40% more often than they kill the enemy every match isn't going to get anyone to play.

Also if you played with friends who enjoyed the IS vs Clan balance, great. Google forums from that era and find me all the joy about tournament play and gaming cons.

I'm well familiar with the rage from clan introduction. 2 Slot DHS, 1 ton LLs (ERML), 2 slot XLs , and hardpoint/equipment/weapon swap with almost no cost, ...etc. caused seas of rage that continue to froth to this day. However, they've managed to make it a lot more balanced over time.

Yokaiko, on 11 September 2015 - 09:32 PM, said:

THIS THIS what is THIS

It seems your PSR score went up. Not your rank, just your score.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 11 September 2015 - 09:43 PM.

[M E M E M A C H I N E]

The first thing that came to mind when infotech was brought up:
The only thing this is going to be good for is getting more LRMs on target or lining up locks for streaks and other lock ons.

Any build that doesn't require lock ons will be no more effective if I had a dorito and red box around an enemy mech or not.

The extent of what I use "infotech" for now is getting scouting points by mashing the R key while pointing at un-spotted mechs.

Perhaps there should be more of a link between the infotech and how effective all weapon types are if they want it to have a true impact. Just introducing the infotech as a means of targeting is not something I see changing the the current point and shoot meta.

[Yokaiko]

Except they seemed to jack the baseline I had a Gargoyle inside 500m with a Death Knell and couldn't lock it.

[SaltedGround]

I love the idea of the re-balance, but my biggest issue with the game is its still suffers from Mudflasion. Fixing symptoms not problems.

Many of the games issues stem from the lack of an expanding radical. Ghost Heat, ridiculous alpha damage, pop-snipering and the need to dubble armor values, all can be linked back to the pin point cross hairs. Bringing in an expanding radical would also allow for missing a target and damage spread. This would push the need for critical seeking weapons on min/max chassis that currently only need to run 3-5 ER Large Lasers to chop off a torso.

I'm sure this has all be brought up before but i thought it would get a new voice on this thread,
thank you for your time.

[M E M E M A C H I N E]

SaltedGround, on 11 September 2015 - 09:55 PM, said:

I love the idea of the re-balance, but my biggest issue with the game is its still suffers from Mudflasion. Fixing symptoms not problems.

Many of the games issues stem from the lack of an expanding radical. Ghost Heat, ridiculous alpha damage, pop-snipering and the need to dubble armor values, all can be linked back to the pin point cross hairs. Bringing in an expanding radical would also allow for missing a target and damage spread. This would push the need for critical seeking weapons on min/max chassis that currently only need to run 3-5 ER Large Lasers to chop off a torso.

I'm sure this has all be brought up before but i thought it would get a new voice on this thread,
thank you for your time.

the true problem is really the fact that there a human at the controls of the mech. they will go to the end of the earth to exploit every conceivable attempt to 'balance' things. Therefore this is really a much more complex and delicate problem than most people think. It will take time, but PGI will eventually figure it out.

[lsp]

Should just remove the ability to change load outs in the mechlab, problem solved. Only customizeable thing should be paint schemes and insignias.

[Yokaiko]

spacegy4, on 11 September 2015 - 09:57 PM, said:

the true problem is really the fact that there a human at the controls of the mech. they will go to the end of the earth to exploit every conceivable attempt to 'balance' things. Therefore this is really a much more complex and delicate problem than most people think. It will take time, but PGI will eventually figure it out.

They have had three years......

lsp, on 11 September 2015 - 10:00 PM, said:

Should just remove the ability to change load outs in the mechlab, problem solved. Only customizeable thing should be paint schemes and insignias.

Lets compare a stock Jagermech to Stormcrow Prime....

.....think about that for just a moment.

[IraqiWalker]

lsp, on 11 September 2015 - 10:00 PM, said:

Should just remove the ability to change load outs in the mechlab, problem solved. Only customizeable thing should be paint schemes and insignias.

I don't think you know how mechs are made, do you? Remember the stock loadouts?

[MischiefSC]

IraqiWalker, on 11 September 2015 - 09:42 PM, said:

I'm well familiar with the rage from clan introduction. 2 Slot DHS, 1 ton LLs (ERML), 2 slot XLs , and hardpoint/equipment/weapon swap with almost no cost, ...etc. caused seas of rage that continue to froth to this day. However, they've managed to make it a lot more balanced over time.


It seems your PSR score went up. Not your rank, just your score.

How was it balanced? How would that work in MW:O? What would it look like?

How about this - actually make a regular event for IS vs Clan and see if you can make the population work. Saying 'people shouldn't care about KDR' is like saying 'people shouldn't be greedy'.

Okay. Great. Good luck with that.

I appreciate everyones anecdotal references to 'how great it was/how well it would work'. Any and all telemetry about how people play MW:O, how people play (and played) TT BT and even MegaMek points towards asymetric IS vs Clans balance with Clans being OP is seven shades of doomed out of the gate. Unless we're going to reduce player skill to dice-rolls, like it is in TT and get people to stop caring about how often they kill the enemy relative to how often they get killed (and have to just spectate the rest of the match). Also how many people want to play the Hero character and how many want to play the Peon - all the time.

Again, fortunately PGI already settled this question. It's not going to happen.