36 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

Sensors will not balance the game until you have hordes of people lining up to play mechs whose "role" is "to target stuff, but not be shot at or to kill stuff." Yeah, lots of fun... running around and hitting "R" a lot.

This is like the idiocy I've seen in some table-top roleplaying games with gimpy classes who are "balanced" with "social skills" - which do nothing to help them survive the game's inevitable combat encounters.

- The lack of quality in the PTS data makes it clear nobody checked their work and I seriously doubt some grand algorithm produced this data. Or, if a formula was used, it is clearly horribly flawed.

- Sensors are not a balancing mechanic. There is no game mode that is completed by "detecting all the enemy mechs before they detect you." You don't kill enemy mechs by detecting them. Detecting their weapons does not make them deal less damage to you. You deal damage, receive damage, and use mobility in this game. Trying to make sensors a 4th equal factor is a failure.

- The level of failure in the PTS data would kill this game if put into production. PGI has a very bad track record of understanding such things, as well as actually testing things before deploying them. This does NOT bode well for this game's future.

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 10:58 AM, said:

And PGI never said that, and which is why I am puzzled why people are raging loudly about it.

And just as a sweetener, here are a few simple and not-so-simple changes to mix things up in information warfare:

• wide-area smoke/incendiary modules
  
• flammable environment
  
• ECM disabling IFF (like it used to)
  
• range detection asymmetry (as they are proposing now)
  
• making TAG visibility subject to atmospheric conditions
  
• making TAG immune to ECM outside of bubble
  
• active/passive sensor system
  
• mines (area denial is information denial)
  
• remove missile warning
  
• make Betty warn that you have been targetted. (yes, it's to troll the enemy )

You are talking about a game company that basically gave up on switchable ammo, fixing convergence, fixing the skill tree, fixing the 3 of a kind mechs needed for that skill tree, etc.

There is no evidence that they can create a dynamic and fun game environment where info-gathering is actually needed AND actually fun. I'm sure with some effort, they could create a disaster where mechs regularly get killed by things they can't even see or detect, but that's the extent of their capabilities in this field, I'm afraid.

[KraftySOT]

Thats all very true. And we cant just throw coins in the wishing well, hoping and praying that PGI will add meaningful "role warfare".

Two years in. Were shooting gundams. Thats all there is to do.

Your choice right now is, which gundam shoots other gundams best. The "balance pass" in its current state (clearly not finished) gives you two choices. Which mech shoots gundams best, or which mech helps other mechs shoot gundams best.

At the end of the day all there is to do, is shoot gundams, so "the mech that helps other mechs shoot gundams" is only a chrome/fluff/flavor choice. Not a real choice.

Its like taking a Dune Buggy to a race in GTA Online. You can do it for lulz, its a choice, but its not a "real" choice. Sure you can knock some car out of the race so someone else wins, but thats not really the point now is it.

Its GLARINGLY apparent you cant balance with sensors alone.

Even giving mondo rewards to mechs that can hit 'R' real fast, would not make that a 'real' choice in the game. I dont think alot of people would enjoy being useless, other than providing "HIS RT IS WIDE OPEN!" on comms to your teammates. Thats surely fun for some people, but I cant imagine it would be fun for all that many people.

Most people want to win. Not help someone else win. Thats a fundamental problem in lots of team games. Thats why you have to either make it fun, or provide a really, really good carrot to motivate people to do it.

Dropping ammo and health in other FPSs. No one did that until you started giving people XP and such for it at a rate that really buffs you success level as you do other things for yourself. Helping people helps you.

How a metaphorical scout mech, helps himself by targeting something quickly so he can let someone else know, who cant target quickly, valuable information, is beyond me. If youre helping someone else, which rewards you, and you can still do what you want to win....THATS where its at.

More carrot. Less stick.

(now of course if playing with your friends in MWO was easier, you might see more people be willing to fill a role that is simply "support" for someone else. Youll support your friend, long before you support a stranger. Under this new system, in a group or competitive game, yes, I can see why having a mech thats great at hitting 'R' would be a 'role'. I can even see how people would find that fun. Theres a reinforcement loop going on when you play with a friend and help him out. He thanks you. You get what you want out of the exchange. When its a stranger...that person is gone at the end of the match. There is no reinforcement you did a good thing for someone. Youre just left sitting there with 75k cbills, 200 damage and no kills...but man alot of spotting assists...atta boy )

Edited by KraftySOT, 13 September 2015 - 11:26 AM.

[Mystere]

oldradagast, on 13 September 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

Detecting their weapons does not make them deal less damage to you. You deal damage, receive damage, and use mobility in this game. Trying to make sensors a 4th equal factor is a failure.

That's probably because you are too focused on just "sensors" as the 4th element of the diamond and not what it actually represents: information warfare. It involves figuring out at least three things:

• Where is the enemy?
  
  • You cannot shoot them if you cannot see them.
• What is the enemy?
  
  • Your entire lance might be outgunned by that lone mech you decided to meet face-to-face.
• Who is the enemy?
  
  • Am I shooting a friend or foe?

If your "Super Duper Brawling Murder Ball from Hell" cannot see nor close in with "Super Sneaky Super Fast Long Range Archers" led by no other than the famed Surena, you'd probably end up just like Marcus Licinius Crassus and his legions.

oldradagast, on 13 September 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

You are talking about a game company that basically gave up on switchable ammo, fixing convergence, fixing the skill tree, fixing the 3 of a kind mechs needed for that skill tree, etc.

There is no evidence that they can create a dynamic and fun game environment where info-gathering is actually needed AND actually fun. I'm sure with some effort, they could create a disaster where mechs regularly get killed by things they can't even see or detect, but that's the extent of their capabilities in this field, I'm afraid.

If you think all this is hopeless, then seriously why are you still here? Wouldn't it be better for you if you left?

[oldradagast]

Mystere, on 13 September 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

That's probably because you are too focused on just "sensors" as the 4th element of the diamond and not what it actually represents: information warfare. It involves figuring out at least three things:

• Where is the enemy?
  
  • You cannot shoot them if you cannot see them.
• What is the enemy?
  
  • Your entire lance might be outgunned by that lone mech you decided to meet face-to-face.
• Who is the enemy?
  
  • Am I shooting a friend or foe?

If your "Super Duper Brawling Murder Ball from Hell" cannot see nor close in with "Super Sneaky Super Fast Long Range Archers" led by no other than the famed Surena, you'd probably end up just like Marcus Licinius Crassus and his legions.

Because... a game where people can regularly kill you without you even seeing them is now "fun?" If I wanted that crap, I'd play any one of countless other twitch-based 1st person shooters, where people hide in rocks with sniper scopes and blow away targets in 1 hit who never even see them.

As for not knowing if you're shooting friend or foe, were you here for the HUD bug in Open Beta? The one that stripped you of seeing any IFF markers, resulting in randomly bumbling around, hoping that you're shooting foes, not friends, or waiting until you get shot to shoot back? Why are we proposing making a terrible bug into a feature?

Finally, if they introduced the concepts of stealth mechs, invisibility, and no-scope-leet-sniper kills into the game from the start, it still would have stunk as an idea, but at least we could have chosen not to play the game and not waste money on it. Instead, they are proposing this idiocy 2 years into official release, which seems like bait and switch to me if implemented as proposed.

[KraftySOT]

Everyone has moments of hopelessness.

PGI doesnt exactly instill the most confidence in its customers.

As for getting killed by "unseen shooters". Have you missed the last 10 years of first person shooters? Without a kill cam, I generally have no idea who killed me, unless you both walk into the same room at the same time. The vast majority of kills are people who never see you. From CoD and Battlefield, to stuff like War Thunder or World of Tanks.

And we still can see our own team mates, and as said, ive been playing this game for years and rarely ever hit 'R' anyways. Im shooting two locations. Legs on certain megs. CTs on other mechs. Even now I cant get target data by the time my poke is over.

[oldradagast]

KraftySOT, on 13 September 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

Everyone has moments of hopelessness.

PGI doesnt exactly instill the most confidence in its customers.

As for getting killed by "unseen shooters". Have you missed the last 10 years of first person shooters? Without a kill cam, I generally have no idea who killed me, unless you both walk into the same room at the same time. The vast majority of kills are people who never see you. From CoD and Battlefield, to stuff like War Thunder or World of Tanks.

And we still can see our own team mates, and as said, ive been playing this game for years and rarely ever hit 'R' anyways. Im shooting two locations. Legs on certain megs. CTs on other mechs. Even now I cant get target data by the time my poke is over.

A few points:

- One of the very reason I DON'T play most 1st person shooters is because of camping / sniping crap where people just hide out and sniper people from far enough way that they can't be seen or shot back. It's not fun, and it's a crappy game-play mechanic that heavily rewards map memorization and twitch play, not teamwork... and, quite frankly, I'm getting too old for that style of game play.

- I play World of Warships, which is close enough to World of Tanks. Yes, the game has detection ranges and such, but even there, it is rather rare (at least in my experience up to mid-tiers) to be clobbered by a threat you can't see. Sure, sure - destroyers can skirt around the edge of visibility and launch torpedoes, but that's about it. Also, Wargaming is not nuts enough to release a "battleship designed to scout" or "a destroyer without torpedoes but which is almost invisible." They are not actively trying to make a game where not being able to see your opponent is now part of the "fun."

The biggest problem - MWO was NOT promised to be this way, and was not designed in such a matter. Change a purchased product that badly, and don't be shocked when most everyone leaves.

[KraftySOT]

Quake 2 and UT were the last games were I regularly knew who killed me, because with 200 armor and 100 health in those games, a rocket launcher battle would usually go on for 20 seconds or so, while you both shot at each others feet.

Ever since Counterstrike took over the world, 90% of the time, im dying to a sniper, or am flanked, or grenaded, and never saw my attacker. When I kill someone, its usually from a hidden position, or theyre running across a field, or theyre shooting at someone else.

Just playing a Hainan Resort game in BF4, id probably go 14/6 KDR, and never have seen the 6 people who killed me (hardcore, no killcam) and most of the people I kill, never saw me either.

Thats just how games roll nowadays.

I mean...people have been complaining about the almighty radar in this game forever. One guy gets a lock, and the lurmageddon happens. They had to REALLY nerf lrms into the ground to stop it.

Now its harder to get locks...I dont see how that changes the game for me however. I never locked anyone anyways. I dont care where youre damaged. Im shooting you in the leg, or the CT, depending on mech and game mode.

Thats one of the main reasons this is a terrible metric to balance mechs. People can ignore it, and people already do ignore it.

[KraftySOT]

oldradagast, on 13 September 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

- One of the very reason I DON'T play most 1st person shooters is because of camping / sniping crap where people just hide out and sniper people from far enough way that they can't be seen or shot back.

The biggest problem - MWO was NOT promised to be this way, and was not designed in such a matter. Change a purchased product that badly, and don't be shocked when most everyone leaves.

Very fair points.

Though id say "infotech" HELPS the game be a thinking mans shooter with a better pace than the 'get shot by the AWP' game play. Thats why im here as well. Im not a huge fan of that style of games, even though I play them from time to time, and am good at them. Its just not my bag.

It just absolutely cannot do it alone.

If you dropped infotech ontop of what we already have on the live server, not alot would change. It would just add some much needed depth.

Now I think things DO need to change on the live server (some weapons dont work/arent balanced, theres a skill thats broke, etc) on top of just new sensors.

We also need weapons balanced, and quirks balanced.

All the sensor stuff is a sideshow. Its a cool sideshow. But a sideshow. The mobility quirks, some of them are good, some of the negatives are good, some of them are very bad. Some of them are just ridiculous like the Whale and TW.

Everything you do in this game revolves around shooting stuff. The balance has to come from shooting stuff.

Edited by KraftySOT, 13 September 2015 - 11:56 AM.

[oldradagast]

KraftySOT, on 13 September 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

Very fair points.

Though id say "infotech" HELPS the game be a thinking mans shooter with a better pace than the 'get shot by the AWP' game play. Thats why im here as well. Im not a huge fan of that style of games, even though I play them from time to time, and am good at them. Its just not my bag.

It just absolutely cannot do it alone.

If you dropped infotech ontop of what we already have on the live server, not alot would change. It would just add some much needed depth.

Now I think things DO need to change on the live server (some weapons dont work/arent balanced, theres a skill thats broke, etc) on top of just new sensors.

We also need weapons balanced, and quirks balanced.

The main problem is that if Infotech - the ability to see and detect your foe - is going to be as important as the ability to kill them, take their damage, etc. then, by definition, a team must be in trouble if they lack an "infotech" or "scout" mech on their team... which just makes life even harder for PUG's because now they need somebody to play a specific mech - one with a very boring, non-combat role - if they want to be able to properly detect their foes and fight back.

That's horrible game balancing. It would be like making the weakest, non-combat class in the game be the only one that can cast "remove invisibility" - somebody NEEDS to play that class, but it's no fun to play.

[SpiralFace]

Information warfare will always hold potential as a pillar as long as it contributes to winning a fight.

I think people are wrong to outrightiously dismiss info warfare, because frankly, there is already a system in the game that revolves around it. LRM's.

Yeah LRM's are a mess, and an even greater mess in this system, but as long as info warfare has the potential to be used in an offensive way like you see with infotech, there is potential for the system. I also like the idea of bonus damage or crit chances for mechs under target.

Sure, in a direct fire situation, Info tech is not needed, and condones a "bonus" to actually info gather and detect components and nothing more.

But as long as LRM's are an offensive weapon directly tied to the use of info warfare, there is potential, because then their is a DIRECT impact on the benefits of the system when you can min-max a warhawk up to 10 seconds of target retention time for LRM's.

[Destoroyah]

I too think there is probably more to the quirks then just the infotek.

The problem is PGI should of layed out something like a roadmap that lets the testers have a better concept of what their trying to accomplish. Also if they introduce new variables like the infotek quirks they need to explain HOW they work instead of just add them and expect the testers to muddle through till they figure them out. Honestly it is PGI's lack of communication and foresight that has resulted in most of the rage. Granted there will always be complainers that only will like things if it's done exactly their way or are too lazy to look at the info provided by the developers(IF it's provided).

Example Roadmap: They don't need to give dates just a general guideline of what they trying to do with the rebalance.

Phase 1: Wiping all quirks. Addition of infotek quirks and mobility/durability quirks.

Phase 2: Weapon and Equipment Rebalance. Further tweaks to phase 1 quirks.

Phase 3: Weapon Quirks added.

Phase 4: Refine quirks before going live.

Edited by Destoroyah, 13 September 2015 - 12:22 PM.

[oldradagast]

SpiralFace, on 13 September 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:

Information warfare will always hold potential as a pillar as long as it contributes to winning a fight.

I think people are wrong to outrightiously dismiss info warfare, because frankly, there is already a system in the game that revolves around it. LRM's.

Which are, as you said, a mess. Color me unimpressed that a company that cannot come balance LRM's and ECM now wants to work their same level of "infotech" magic into every aspect of the game.

Best case: infotech does nothing and we just end up with some useless scout mechs.

Worst case: infotech is critical and you have games where you get killed by invisible foes because nobody in your PUG group wanted to play the scout mech.

Those options are both terrible.

[SpiralFace]

Info tech doesn't have to be relegated to the scout role exclusively.

There are a lot of mechs in public test that already contain decent enough scouting. The only thing that is utterly terrible is the base ranges of all the classes (Something I hope they fix.)

And I call BS to the notion that the best case and the worse case both ultimately revovle around saying "f this aspect of the game." Info tech SHOULD have a place in the game as originally stated. And like other games, there should be perks and drawbacks to utilizing it. Much like having a stacked build of different combo's in a MOBA or a wargame gets you, the game has revolved for WAY too long around a dull linier firepower scale that they have failed to make interesting. You might not like the fact that a game systems might actually condone perks and drawbacks, but there is a middle ground between useless and "must have" just like everything else, and the potential is there because there is already an inlaid system that utilizes the infotech in an offensive way, and for all we know, there might be other ways based on others have already suggested.

Its fair enough to call it out as a mess now because it is, but saying it will NEVER be relevant is disengenous to what is already in the game. As long as LRM's are fundamentally attached to the info warfare package and utilize it in an offensive way, there will be a point to it.

They just need to balance it out against everything else, and I would rather have the extra DEPTH in the game then just saying f' it all I don't want it to matter, so lets just scrap it all.

[MischiefSC]

There are some critical things to keep in mind -

still just on pts. Nothing has changed for real. Don't waste rage.

Marauder and Warhammer are coming, thus we must all pull together to make this game work. Cuz f*** you all, I'm going to stomp around in a Maddy and a Whammy and blow the **** out of stuff and the game needs to be fun.

We need to step back, take a breath and focus on fixing not batching
We're asking PGI to delay and pivot to work on weapon balance on the pts first. That doesn't seem unreasonable, unwise or undoable.

Edited by MischiefSC, 13 September 2015 - 02:22 PM.

[oldradagast]

SpiralFace, on 13 September 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

Its fair enough to call it out as a mess now because it is, but saying it will NEVER be relevant is disengenous to what is already in the game. As long as LRM's are fundamentally attached to the info warfare package and utilize it in an offensive way, there will be a point to it.

And LRM's, more than any other weapon system in the game, have wildly oscillated from overpowered to useless to overpowered and back to useless again. In fact, aside from perhaps pinpoint damage, no aspect in the game is implemented worse than information warfare, as shown via ECM and LRM's. So, if they can't balance infowarfare on a small scale, why should I trust them to make it a key part of the game for every mech?

As for my best case and worse cast, they are the most likely outcomes. Sure, it's possible some happy medium will be struck, but look at the track record of the game's development so far, particularly with regard to balance issues, and one would have to agree that missing the mark wildly on either side is far more likely then successfully adding some cool, new depth to the game.

I don't ENJOY saying these things - why the heck would I WANT a game I've played for over 2 years and invested real money into sink?! But, facts are facts, and when a company can't even program switchable ammo or replace a dead skill in their "placeholder" skill tree that's now over 2 years old, I cannot trust them to rebalance their entire game from the ground up, especially not after what was seen on the test servers.

Edited by oldradagast, 13 September 2015 - 02:26 PM.

[Astrocanis]

KraftySOT, on 13 September 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

We all have bittervet syndrome. We all think PGI is pretty inept. And that absolutely colors our opinion of this "balance pass".

While alot of the bitterness is completely legit and justifiable, im just trying to see through the hype and make this work. I enjoy this game and I dont want to see it wrecked. Theres ALOT of work to do. I dont want to see the whole thing scrapped, I just want it to actually you know...balance the game. Balance clan vs IS. Raise TTK. Add depth. Maybe a role.

Theyre still PGI, but, at the end of the day theyre trying to move the ball forward (albeit slowly and with alot of mistakes).

Can they get this right? Who knows. But I know they cant get it right unless we point out clearly, and concisely, where and how theyre mucking up.

I am less offended by the balance pass - although I think it is very poorly implemented. I'm more offended by the incredible lack of quality assurance. If they had even glanced at the results, it would not have been implemented. 280 degree yaw with 1000% yaw speed? -3500 yaw? Those are offensive things - this should NEVER have been deployed to be publicly visible. It indicates exceptionally poor management and worse QA.

Play your frigging game, you ... I. Will. Not. Say. The. "M". Word.

[oldradagast]

Astrocanis, on 13 September 2015 - 03:49 PM, said:

I am less offended by the balance pass - although I think it is very poorly implemented. I'm more offended by the incredible lack of quality assurance. If they had even glanced at the results, it would not have been implemented. 280 degree yaw with 1000% yaw speed? -3500 yaw? Those are offensive things - this should NEVER have been deployed to be publicly visible. It indicates exceptionally poor management and worse QA.

Play your frigging game, you ... I. Will. Not. Say. The. "M". Word.

Exactly. We've got people assuming that making all mechs blind and hobbled is the first step towards adding passive / active radar, smoke grenades, and info-war fairy dust when we're really talking about a company that releases a typo-riddled XML file to a test server where even the values that aren't typos rarely make any sense.

The current gap between some people's groundless fantasies and the MWO reality has never been greater than perhaps before the game existed, and I'm damn tired of those of us who based our "bittervet" replies on the facts presented and the game's track record thus far being mocked for it. None of us WANT the game to fail, but sweeping the screw-ups under the rug helps the game even less than bitter commentary.

Edited by oldradagast, 13 September 2015 - 04:46 PM.