772 replies to this topic

[Rodo]

This game is missing:

Radar: On/Off
Armor: Reactive, Refletive, FerroFibrous, Standart.
Coolant: Better performance without paying MC for it.

Weapons be able to get used in both factions, Inner and Clan.

[DarthPeanut]

The idea that infotech and protection are thought to be potential counterpoints for quirking to firepower and movement on their 4 pillar system for balance is absolutely ridiculous.

This is not an RTS, the influence of 'infotech' on a match or game balance is being GROSSLY overestimated.


I personally did not think the current balance was that off compared to doing something like what we see in this rebalance. A handful of offender mechs needed to be addressed and could have been easily. Want to nerf TTK a bit with some structure quirks on IS or a slightly global reduction in all weapons dmg... sure I get it. Want to give your sensor nonsense quirks to some mechs that might fill a poke trading role... ok sure.

Seeing this rebalance is just a clown show though... its like 2 steps forward and 3 steps back... then 3 more back.

Edited by DarthPeanut, 12 September 2015 - 08:16 AM.

[Yokaiko]

DarthPeanut, on 12 September 2015 - 08:08 AM, said:

This is not an RTS, the influence of 'infotech' on a match or game balance is being GROSSLY overestimated.

Starting with the fact you can see across most maps.

[Gut]

People talk about "setting up things to come" and I'm all for that, but they shouldn't be wasting resources putting this into the game when it's not going to have an impact, it's not going to balance mechs, etc. They should hold it in reserve, implement the new system of doing things (if they are actually planning on doing that), THEN start balancing for info. warfare. Here's a ts convo from earlier this morning:

<10:42:21> "+SJR+ Gut": they really should have implemented an entirely new information warfare system before trying to change stuff that doesn't matter at the high end
<10:42:27> "+SJR+ Gut": they're doing it backwards
<10:43:04> "+SJR+ Gut": "but that would take coding" no crap, everything that would be good for the game does
<10:43:25> "Val :3": + if this was supposed to be a first pass or to test stuff or rather to esatblish a baseline why quirk already into 5 different directions
<10:44:06> "+SJR+ Gut": first pass, last pass, no matter how much they tweak it, it won't matter in the sim's current implementation
<10:44:15> "+SJR+ Gut": therefore, it's useless
<10:44:17> "Val :3": agreed
<10:44:26> "Val :3": all the informationw arfare is useless
<10:44:30> "Val :3": as far as balance is concerned
<10:44:56> "Frost Pendragon": it's only useful for low visibility environments
<10:45:06> "+SJR+ Gut": ^ i dont really want those
<10:45:08> "Frost Pendragon": and those are absolute **** for gameplay
<10:45:18> "+SJR+ Gut": especially for a shooting game
<10:45:21> "Val :3": + heat vision is unaffected
<10:45:24> "Frost Pendragon": exactly
<10:45:24> "Val :3": + night vision
<10:45:39> "Val :3": so not even really there
<10:45:52> "Frost Pendragon": except we have stupid limitaitons on those vision modes so that you're blind past 600m
<10:46:16> "Val :3": yea but how often do you engage past 600m
<10:46:21> "Frost Pendragon": lots
<10:46:22> "Val :3": if you arent old <edited>
<10:46:34> "Val :3": you fiore a first few shots
<10:46:41> "Val :3": but then you are more likely to sit around 500
<10:46:44> "Val :3": on most maps
<10:46:50> "Val :3": in most situations
<10:47:25> "Frost Pendragon": concur
<10:48:24> "Val :3": + balance itself shouldnt be map dependant

[RoboFrog]

I dont know whats going on but something is going to be done about the gauss rifle right? If this doesn't get adjusted then this is madness.

[Yokaiko]

RoboFrog, on 12 September 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

I dont know whats going on but something is going to be done about the gauss rifle right? If this doesn't get adjusted then this is madness.

Untouched other than GI lost all quirks for it.

[Vlad Striker]

If the Hero mechs will lose weaponry quirks I want my money back for these mechs. GI and Hellslinger and Huginn (at least) have no sense without quirks.

[Man with Axe]

The first striking thought after reading Paul's excuses was:
Same person who gave ECM "the magic invisibility" quirk now believes that sensors debuff is a good way to balance mechs?

@Paul
you should seriously consider Veev's notion ↓

Veev, on 12 September 2015 - 05:59 AM, said:

@Russ
Fire Paul Inouye already.

[Alex Gorsky]

Man with Axe, on 12 September 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

Fire Paul Inouye already.

yes plz

[LordLosh]

I want to help but man if this is the best effort of the new quirk pass............... I mean it looks like you are just making random numbers out of then air and messing with targeting systems on every mech when the meta is direct fire weapons........... killing me here guys. you were doing so good then you make this half a$$ attempt to re balance a monster you created.

[Doman Hugin]

haven't been able to get into a match yet so i can't play test this rebalance, this being a test server can we get to see how many people are on the server so we can know if its worthwhile waiting for a match?


but looking at the mechbay and stats for various mechs:

Like a lot of the posters above have said sensor neg's or bonuses are not a good replacement for weapon quirks. Not unles acheiving a lock gets to be much more benificial, and it'd need to be weapon related to be that benificial. (just throwing this out there, but something like chainfire only unless you have a lock).

What's needed is a reason to pilot every single mech that you've spent time and money putting into this game.

[TitaniumBurn]

How the Mechs are balanced currently really only effects damage and therefore because the scoring of matches is heavily weighed to damage, you will get a lot of nerfing comments etc.. about any balancing changes. If more of the matches had other goals that gave the player, and then team as a whole, more points other areas of the diamond become more important such as movement and infotech.

An example of this can be seen in most assault matches. The number one goal of the mission is to capture the enemy's base but in most cases the teams will act as if the match is a skirmish because that is how they get points and therefore c-bills. Even being unhappy with their own team, or the other team, if the base capture happens too soon. This can also be seen on a smaller scale in the conquest missions.

Until the end goal of all matches changes, the focus will be on damage, and you will only get complaints about balancing to other aspects of the mechs.

If you are in a skirmish match damage should be the main point and therefore c-bill factor, but if you have a different goal the points should align differently. This allows players that want pure combat to still have it in skirmish matches, but other play is rewarded differently in other types of matches making the less damage driven variants useful in other ways.

Just my two cents

Edited by TitaniumBurn, 12 September 2015 - 11:43 AM.

[Lootax]

Man with Axe, on 12 September 2015 - 10:36 AM, said:

@Russ
Fire Paul Inouye already.

I agree with that.


Seriously i came on the PTS this morning being curious about the change and then i saw the terribad.
I'm not posting often on these forums. But i need to express my bad surprise and disappoint.
The quirks system, even if i'm not fond of is kinda effective. The problem i had with it when it was implemented his it was forcing loadouts on mechs. What should have be done is to give mechs quirks for a certains category of weapons.
Or even better, to balance the weapons, with the mech agility, hitboxes, size.
I'm mostly a Clan centric player, but i still like playing Innersphere and i had not much problem before the first clan nerfs and quirks to compete with Clan mechs. This needed situationnal awarness and to chose where you fight on the map.
You guys show disrespect to the whole community and taking us for stupid children when presenting the fact that "Sensor buff" can be put on the same level as raw firepower. I'm member of an organized group and what we do is to focus fire and call targets. That completly negates ECM when trading fire. ECM is a no ammo AMS system. Simple as that.
What you needed to adress to this game are the mech/weapons stats and hitboxes/models.
What i don't understand is the fact that you keep to consider the stats from at TT strategy game that uses DICES (aka LUCK) and put them into an online first person shooter that uses player SKILL.

Edited by Exentius, 12 September 2015 - 11:28 AM.

[Chados]

What I'm deducing from all the red is that there is a mythical "1.0" that's full on everything, and then mechs are balanced from that. So we see a lot of red, -x percent.

It would be helpful, perhaps if we knew what "1.0" was, but that probably is a trade secret.

What concerns me is that the first pass shows much more red on the IS heavies and mediums than on equivalent Clan chassis. Is play testing showing that the Clans are better than they are now? If so, that's a problem.

[Lyoto Machida]

TorinZ, on 12 September 2015 - 07:42 AM, said:

I would agree that some weapons need longer cool downs, PPCs being one of them. That would help the heat issues we see with some weapon systems and mechs.

PPCs need longer cooldown? Because people use them too much nowadays???

This is inspiring me to take some PPC mechs out right now.

[stjobe]

Doman Hugin, on 12 September 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:

haven't been able to get into a match yet so i can't play test this rebalance, this being a test server can we get to see how many people are on the server so we can know if its worthwhile waiting for a match?

You can probably work out how many are on by looking at the queue numbers.

E.g. last PTS (the tutorial one) I had queues of 11%, 22%, 44%, and 22% - which meant that there was nine people on. I was the 11% in the light queue...

Either way, don't get your hopes of a match up, most people realize rather quickly that this PTS build is neither fun nor even ready to test.

I'd actually like to see them take it down come Monday, go back to the drawing-board, and give us a more production-ready build to test when they've beaten some sense into Paul.

There's no point in testing this one, it's broken.

[TorinZ]

What really should be done with these changes is, just don't show these as quirks. In the end they are really just differences in the individual mech stats. So instead of showing a whole list of positive and negative quirks, just show the actual stats to the mech. Looking at % increase/decrease across multiple stats with these quirks just makes people cringe. We are not seeing a baseline of what these numbers change. Just show the real number per stat for each mech and I think in the end would be a cleaner way to show stats in the UI. Looking at a negative 250% can freak people out, but if the actual stat change is minimal because 250% multiplied by some small fraction could really be not a huge deal. I would rather see the actual stats.

[Dawnstealer]

As I've said in other threads, I don't envy you guys: Clan tech vs IS tech has been broken since FASA introduced it. Don't get me wrong: it's a GREAT storytelling foil, but for a game that's meant to be balanced and fun, it's a really hard work-around.

Clan weapons, as you say, are SUPPOSED to be overpower. Clan Tech is SUPPOSED to be way better than IS tech. But to play against that is disheartening and at the end of the day, we play games to have fun.

So you guys are all aware of this. I don't think the fix is as hard as you're making it.

Lore-wise, Clan warriors liked to stay at range, IS warriors were known for brawling. Clan warriors liked one-on-one challenge-based fighting, IS liked to scrum and fight dirty.

So the solution is two-part:

1) REWARDS: XP for IS is fine. It works. XP for Clans should not be the same. Give big bonuses for Solo Kills. Give NO XP for Assists. Give some XP for a combo of Most Damage and Killshot. Reward role-playing, is what I'm getting at.

2) RANGE VS DAMAGE: This is different from other BT and MW games and here's why - it'll allow a bit more balance. Balance IS damage vs Clan Range and consistency. Don't make Clan weapons burn hotter or longer. Burn rates and fire rates should largely be the same. Instead, Clan weapons do less max damage, but have a longer range, and the drop-off out to max range is less. IS weapons should do more damage right up close, but this should drop off very quickly as it gets out to range.

With both of these, you will have Clan pilots generally engaging one-on-one at range, and IS pilots trying to get as close as possible.

[TorinZ]

Lyoto Machida, on 12 September 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

PPCs need longer cooldown? Because people use them too much nowadays???

This is inspiring me to take some PPC mechs out right now.

Well, was just responding to the person talking about how fast they fire compared to TT rules. In MW4, PPC's had something like a 6 second cool down, 8 seconds on the ErPPC's IIRC. Longer cool downs would help with heat since you have time to cool off. But, 6-8 seconds feels like a long time in combat. There is no easy fix on the PPCs I am sure to make everyone see them more positive. I still like using them. I personally have less issue with their heat values/cool down time and feel the problem lies more with their velocity numbers. But all that can be discussed when they look at weapon tweaking again.

[Ascheriit Davion]

I haven't read the whole 19 ( I mean 20....lol) pages of this forum thread. Too lazy and so if what I wrote here has been mentioned by other, then please accept my sincere apology.

I dun mind all of these mech balancing-tweaking-whatever you want to call it.

But why don't we go back to the lore (I don't play the board games but I read most of battletech novel except those in german language)

Here's what I know so far:
IS mech:
- Slower than clan (except those pesky light mech)
- suckier weapon (dunno about power but RANGE), armor, and heat sink
- fixed hard point
- weapons are heavier (same ammo weight but since its heavier, less weight space for ammo)

Clan mech:
- faster than IS (almost all...almost)
- better weapon, armor, and heat sink
- modular hard point
- weapon Is lighter (hence more weapon can be mounted and or more ammo)

But here's the great part (which hasn't been implemented in MWO):
- Through out the lore (novels), both side CAN use each other weapon (they trade and salvage each other like crazy)
- The only drawback of IS mech are their slower speed (for most mech) and fixed hardpoint, other than that if the mech owner have the connection and money, they pretty much can get their hand on clan tech. Hence IS mech can still mount more weapon with clan weaponry and or ammo, install same armor plating.
- The only distinct clan advantage other than possessing a lot of clan tech supply is their modular hard point where a ballistic arm in one battle, suddenly become a laser arm (causing small wtf moment to their counter part nemesis/rival pilot)

I like MW4 concept actually. And heck as the time progress most IS mech become as OP as the clan mech. And I like the idea of mix match IS-Clan weaponry to get that awesome heat management - weapon/ammo efficiency.

By all mean, keep all the quirk or these info-changes you're gonna do. But the lore, imo, is already quite balance in the first place. And one of the reasons why I play MW games is because I love how that specific mech looks, hell that comes first before I know its loadout or quirk capacity. If that mech looks good, I better damn well adapt so I become good at using it.

Just my opinions and inputs, my apology if someone posted similar input before, and pardon my grammar.

PS: To dev, many many MANY thanks for oceanic server. Playing at 50-90ms is MUCH better than playing at 290-390ms. I feel like a newtype-jedi hybrid pilot nowadays.

Edited by Ascheriit Davion, 12 September 2015 - 12:09 PM.