572 replies to this topic

[TopRay]

InsaneRotta, on 14 October 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

Wow. I really get the feeling that many warriors are reading the original PTS post until they reach a point like "40 % reduction", and start screaming and rolling on the floor like kids.

This phase is a TEST. TEST IT before you break down and start crying. It's not being implemented AS IS and RIGHT AWAY. Jeez!

also, if it's MAXIMUM range reduction 40 %, why do people immeadiately assume it effects optimal range aswell? Just like the "not target locking reduces laser damage at 60 % MAXIMUM range" You still would do full damage at optimal range without lock, no?

no is correct, you will not do max damage at optimal range without lock, for example the optimal range/max damage for IS MedL without lock is 162m. the reason Is because 60% max range is a typo , it should read 60% optimal range.
so you are forced to lock to get full damage at 270m .
in summary if you want to get full damage at the old optimal range you will have to lock every target b4 shooting. even if 2 enemy mechs are standing at 270m right next to each other if you lock one and shoot the other you will only have 162 optimal.
and i am not a fan of this.

Edited by TopRay, 15 October 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Mazzyplz, on 15 October 2015 - 05:25 AM, said:

how does your argument make any sense?
you wish the game not to be about who dishes the most dmg;
but you also want one side to be clearly able to dish out more damage than the other

what's going on in that little head of yours

is this one of those arguments born out of feelings and emotions?

"it doesn't FEEEEEEEEEEL like battletekz"



not having a level playing field is not "fun".
it is a waste of time for half the players involved - why would you take part in a race where only you have your ankles tied? to find out if you or the other guy wins? NEWSFLASH YOU LOSE!

the only thing you manage to have done is waste your time

so what it boils down to is that you want inner sphere players to give up any hope of competing in the first place and just like masochists; play a first person shooter in which you are supposed to have fun while losing.
and the people who play clan mechs should just happen to win; but not really care about winning

oh yeah and each player gets to pick a side. - (we're hopeful that 50% will choose IS)

thats hilarious man. consider a career in comedy.

This guy gets it.


Yeah, see... I'm all for Battletech being Battletech, but that means different things to different people.

It seems a distressing number of people want Clan tech (and note my clan tag here) to be objectively superior, and get right pissed off when it's not, and at attempts to make it equal.

The reality is that things need to be reasonably balanced. The introduction of Clan tech to Battletech was driven entirely to sell products, because it introduced massive power creep. It was (and the creators of Battletech fully admit to this) a really terrible game design decision, and a complete mistake, because it effectively obsoleted everything already in the game and created a total balance nightmare.

In a game like this, having Clan Tech be "properly" overpowered, even if you magically implement a working BV system (and magically have sufficient matchmaker inputs[players queued] to make that BV system actually be able to be used) AND/OR get asymmetric teams (extremely hard to balance as "players per side" is a very coarse adjustment) what would happen to MWO is it would immediately become Clan Wars, with like 10 Clan players per IS player, simply because virtually everyone wants to be the elite warrior, not the zergling.

In short, we can not, and will not have heavily overpowered Clans. The goal is, and must be, to have balanced factions.

Disagree? It doesn't matter. This is a decision that was made (and made for very good game design reasons) and isn't going to change.

Edited by Wintersdark, 15 October 2015 - 11:13 AM.

[Pihoqahiak]

Wintersdark, on 15 October 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

The introduction of Clan tech to Battletech was driven entirely to sell products, because it introduced massive power creep. It was (and the creators of Battletech fully admit to this) a really terrible game design decision, and a complete mistake, because it effectively obsoleted everything already in the game and created a total balance nightmare.

That is really not the case at all, otherwise there never would have been infantry or vehicles in Battletech because they are completely inferior to Battlemechs. All Clan units did in Battletech was to effectively create three categories of forces to mix in battles instead of the previous two. There are a lot of successful tactical and strategic games that have similar ideas incorporated into them.

[Wintersdark]

Pihoqahiak, on 15 October 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

That is really not the case at all, otherwise there never would have been infantry or vehicles in Battletech because they are completely inferior to Battlemechs. All Clan units did in Battletech was to effectively create three categories of forces to mix in battles instead of the previous two. There are a lot of successful tactical and strategic games that have similar ideas incorporated into them.

*shrugs* Jordan Weisman himself said that adding Clan tech as being flat out superior was a mistake, and one he greatly regretted.

The thing was, (basically) nobody just played infantry/armor in Battletech - those were pretty much in the game to make the setting seem more plausible and story battles work better. The addition of Clan Omnimechs was highly problematic, but at least being a tabletop wargame, it's a lot easier to deal with those things. If you're playing amoungst friends (99% of tabletop wargaming) then arrangements are easily made as to what's acceptable and what's not.

Regardless, that doesn't matter. In MWO, it's not an option. It's just not good to have one faction be vastly superior to another. That's just horrifically poor game design.

[Kaptain]

Tarogato, on 16 September 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

While I do like the idea of playing around with range profiles like the OP suggestions, I think a few other methods of balance should come first.

1. fix some of the heat values that PGI broke.
2. fix some of the damage values that PGI broke.
3. increase duration on Clan ER lasers if the above wasn't enough.
4. adjust ranges on Clan lasers if the above wasn't enough.

"What do you mean values that PGI broke?"

IS ML in tabletop deals 5 damage for 3 heat. PGI decided to make it cost 4 heat. (IS got nerfed)
IS SL in tabletop deals 3 damage for 1 heat. PGI decided to make it cost 2 heat. (IS got nerfed)
cERLL in tabletop deals 10 damage for 12 heat. PGI decided to give it 11 damage. (clan got buffed)
cSPL in tabletop deals 3 damage for 2 heat. PGI decided to give it 6 damage for 3 heat. (is that necessary?)
cMPL in tabletop deals 7 damage for 4 heat. PGI decided to give it 8 damage for 6 heat. (that's actually a nerf... )
cLPL in tabletop deals 10 damage for 10 heat. PGI decided to give it 13 damage. (wtf? really?)

[Polkastein]

You know what needs to happen? We need to introduce lostech to the IS side. Advance the time line to say, 3150, and give the IS mechs all of the clan technology as well. Let each faction use whatever mech they want, then we will have a better balance!

Now I'm not a programmer so I have no idea how much work this might take, but these little tests just aren't doing it. I think it would be much more fun for all involved that way anyway. Stop trying to recreate lore in this game. We all know how it went in the lore, let's create some lore of our own.

[Phellian]

Love the changes! I want to stay on the PTS. All the new things are intuitive and game play is fun again.

My only change would be the color shift on hits. I would like to see it more pronounced.

*cheers PGI*

[Malagant]

Wintersdark, on 15 October 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

*shrugs* Jordan Weisman himself said that adding Clan tech as being flat out superior was a mistake, and one he greatly regretted.

The thing was, (basically) nobody just played infantry/armor in Battletech - those were pretty much in the game to make the setting seem more plausible and story battles work better. The addition of Clan Omnimechs was highly problematic, but at least being a tabletop wargame, it's a lot easier to deal with those things. If you're playing amoungst friends (99% of tabletop wargaming) then arrangements are easily made as to what's acceptable and what's not.

Regardless, that doesn't matter. In MWO, it's not an option. It's just not good to have one faction be vastly superior to another. That's just horrifically poor game design.

Apparently you don't understand the history of warfare at all, seeing as every conqueror in history pushed the envelope of military technology to give his forces as big an advantage as possible to crush his enemies. Do you really think conquerers want a fair fight? Really? It is the way it has always been in history, yet when it happens in a fictional game setting you get bent out of shape crying foul, unable to see that later in the same fictional setting the gap between technology bases gets tighter than ever as everyone adapts. So for the love of Pete, give it a rest already...

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Malagant, on 15 October 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

Apparently you don't understand the history of warfare at all, seeing as every conqueror in history pushed the envelope of military technology to give his forces as big an advantage as possible to crush his enemies. Do you really think conquerers want a fair fight? Really? It is the way it has always been in history, yet when it happens in a fictional game setting you get bent out of shape crying foul, unable to see that later in the same fictional setting the gap between technology bases gets tighter than ever as everyone adapts. So for the love of Pete, give it a rest already...

MWO is 12 v 12, we do not get to have asymmetrical team compositions like we'd see in Command and Conquer, Starcraft and so on, where you can have one side have fewer superior units and the other have a bounty of lesser units.

So this point about conquerors doesn't properly apply to what the PTS is trying to deal with, which is 12 v 12 matches.

[A_K_I_R_A]

With these ECM parameters , it would be almost impossible to not Lurm ?

[Jay Leon Hart]

Malagant, on 15 October 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

Apparently you don't understand the history of warfare at all, seeing as every conqueror in history pushed the envelope of military technology to give his forces as big an advantage as possible to crush his enemies. Do you really think conquerers want a fair fight? Really? It is the way it has always been in history, yet when it happens in a fictional game setting you get bent out of shape crying foul, unable to see that later in the same fictional setting the gap between technology bases gets tighter than ever as everyone adapts. So for the love of Pete, give it a rest already...

Apparently, you don't understand that games are (for the most part) meant to be enjoyed and played for fun. This is not war, this is a video game. If both sides are not having fun and have a roughly equal chance to win, you're doing it wrong. Or you're right, and we should buff IS weapons to be statistically better than their Clan counterparts, because who needs balance when you're making a realistic warfare simulator? Oh, wait...

[Sonny Black]

FYI

[Wintersdark]

Malagant, on 15 October 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

Apparently you don't understand the history of warfare at all, seeing as every conqueror in history pushed the envelope of military technology to give his forces as big an advantage as possible to crush his enemies. Do you really think conquerers want a fair fight? Really? It is the way it has always been in history, yet when it happens in a fictional game setting you get bent out of shape crying foul, unable to see that later in the same fictional setting the gap between technology bases gets tighter than ever as everyone adapts. So for the love of Pete, give it a rest already...

Oh, give it a break. This is a game. This isn't warfare, there is no campaign, no logistics, nothing of the sort. My comments on this line have always been refering to game design, not how warfare works. It has to be a good game first and foremost, both MWO and Battletech. Massive balance disparities do not make a good game. You can deal with huge balance disparities when playing in a friendly group of gamers, but a public PvP game, that doesn't work.

In MWO, we cannot have assymetrical battles, we lack the population to make BV based balancing work. As such, the game must have balanced factions.

There are no conquerers here. Ultimately, MWO is solo and group queue matches; CW is a side addition, not the game proper... and even if it where, nobody wants to play a grossly unbalanced CW.

That the gap closes later doesn't do anyone any good. There would be precious few people happy to play IS knowing they're going to repeatedly lose every random game they play for the next couple years while they wait for the timeline to advance to the point where they can finally compete on a level playing field.

Very, very few players are going to enjoy random drops where they are pretty much guaranteed to lose.

RCola, on 15 October 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

With these ECM parameters , it would be almost impossible to not Lurm ?

LRM's are better, no doubt, but they're still fundamentally poor weapons. At least now, they're not potentially totally wasted tonnage as they could be if you ended up in a match vs. an ECM heavy enemy team.

Basically, they are more reliable but still poor, at higher levels of play at least. Probably pretty strong at lower tiers.

[DebaucheryNShenanigans]

I think peeps are overreacting ALOT.

You didn't see the PRE pic of my aimer not on anything but terrain/buildings.
this still gave me FULL EFFECTIVE range and damage. BUT shooting terrain accomplishes nothing..

AS SOON AS MY AIMER hit a target, it reduced the range and damage till I LOCKED IT with "R".

Important to press R.
if you shoot at an UNLOCKED target, you'll do less damage and less range.
see HOW I am pointing, but not locked.... my range is LOW.






AFTER I lock the target, my effective range increases, probably good damage on it too.









IF I try to shoot outside of the LOCKED, my effective range and damage is lower.

SO PRESS R, be rewarded. or shoot at unlocked target with smaller effective ranges and less effective damage.

SO, ON TARGET WITH A LOCK = MAX DAMAGE AND RANGE.
UNLOCKED = LESS DAMAGE & RNG.
LOCKED but not shooting a the targeted LOCK = Less damage & RNG.

HAPPY HUNTING.

Edited by Fluero, 15 October 2015 - 03:24 PM.

[WintermuteOmega]

Top Leliel, on 13 October 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

I hate to say it, but, adjusting Clan ER Lasers to such a drastically shorter range, and making Clan double heat sinks almost as bad as IS single heat sinks, is a bad idea.

Well: The main reason why IS is still alive is because of massive overquirking to compensate for advanced Clan tech. And since one of the reasons for the PTS rebalance is to get away from quirking, some other adjusments must be made or IS is DOA.

And concerning the Heatsink: They are STILL better AND take only 2 slots.

[Wintersdark]

WintermuteOmega, on 15 October 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

Well: The main reason why IS is still alive is because of massive overquirking to compensate for advanced Clan tech. And since one of the reasons for the PTS rebalance is to get away from quirking, some other adjusments must be made or IS is DOA.

And concerning the Heatsink: They are STILL better AND take only 2 slots.

I'm seriously trying to grasp if people are just stupid, or willfully ignorant.

These things have been well covered in the thread.

Clan DHS: 1.2 capacity, 0.15 dissipation, 2 slots
IS DHS: 1.4 capacity, 0.14 dissipation, 3 slots
IS SHS: 1.1 capacity, 0.11 dissipation, 1 slot

The Clan DHS is still better than the IS DHS, because the size difference is HUGE. It allows Clan mechs (who already have more tonnage to play with due to lighter equipment and better ES/FF) to mount MORE DHS than IS mechs. As well, cDHS are 2.0/0.2 in engine, IS SHS are (presumably) 1.1/0.11 in engine. So, SHS are totally off-the-table bad.

The end result is that Clan mechs have better dissipation than IS mechs, and can have way more capacity even with the capacity nerf simply because they can mount so many more heat sinks.

No tears are allowed here.

"But I want my Clan DHS to be a straight up upgrade to IS DHS, because I deserve them!" is stupid. The game cannot work with Clan mechs simply being better than IS mechs because "But I want to be best!" Restricted customization isn't a balancing factor, it just makes some clan mechs arbitrarily bad and doesn't touch others.

[Tarl Cabot]

Wintersdark, on 15 October 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

*shrugs* Jordan Weisman himself said that adding Clan tech as being flat out superior was a mistake, and one he greatly regretted.

The thing was, (basically) nobody just played infantry/armor in Battletech - those were pretty much in the game to make the setting seem more plausible and story battles work better. The addition of Clan Omnimechs was highly problematic, but at least being a tabletop wargame, it's a lot easier to deal with those things. If you're playing amoungst friends (99% of tabletop wargaming) then arrangements are easily made as to what's acceptable and what's not.

Regardless, that doesn't matter. In MWO, it's not an option. It's just not good to have one faction be vastly superior to another. That's just horrifically poor game design.

Just to add to this, the first play testing of the Clans while using their warfare methods had them in Star League era mechs. And during that series of playtesting Clans could not make any major headway vs IS forces using 3025 technology. Remember though this was on a boardgame using the roll of the dice.

PGI has already added/modified several rules and such but atm failed to bring in certain negative aspects of the game, that is dealing with the actual Heat Scale. PGI has a flexible max cap on the HeatScale but as to balancing the other side of it, PGI included only the final shutdown threshold. There is nothing from zero to max to indicate raising heat except for the flashing warning, nothing to really change a player's behavior on how often and how long to continue firing weapons. Mechs, once exceeding 2-3 threshold marks, should be governed to slow down and its agility to drop instead of just having that final shutdown instance+possible ct damage or override+move at same speed+possible random damage.

The reducing in max range will have a greater effect for the CW scene than anything else with the current modes. The only real change in behavior will be more people will likely be hitting that R key more often while only a few will be more conscious of range damage, nothing more.

Add a better heatscale, make IS XL engines survive the loss of one ST (this is not the boardgame w/dice) but earn a greater negative heat effect than Clan ST loss, and possibly add a negative movement modifier for the loss of one XL side torso.

[Knight2416]

Hey PGI
Odd thing happened in PTS game just now last guy on Red team was zero ping so we went hunting. Then a Drop ship comes in drops mech (MDD) and kills one of us as DS has full lasers and targeted the 2 close mechs ????? WTH. Does that mean reconnection plays will be DS in mid game or just a bug?

Regards

[Polkastein]

Quote

PGI has already added/modified several rules and such but atm failed to bring in certain negative aspects of the game, that is dealing with the actual Heat Scale. PGI has a flexible max cap on the HeatScale but as to balancing the other side of it, PGI included only the final shutdown threshold. There is nothing from zero to max to indicate raising heat except for the flashing warning, nothing to really change a player's behavior on how often and how long to continue firing weapons. Mechs, once exceeding 2-3 threshold marks, should be governed to slow down and its agility to drop instead of just having that final shutdown instance+possible ct damage or override+move at same speed+possible random damage.

Agreed. This would be wonderful and make alphastrikes less than the current meta. TTK would increase through change in playstyles and mech builds to avoid getting too high on that scale.

[Liquid Leopard]

I noticed the crosshairs no longer turn red to indicate if I've hit the target. I'll miss that feature.

I noticed PGI hasn't fixed collisions, even on the test server. I still teleport and change facing (2 or 3 times) if another mech passes within 50m.

TopRay, on 15 October 2015 - 11:11 AM, said:

in summary if you want to get full damage at the old optimal range you will have to lock every target b4 shooting.

If that's true, then doesn't it mean ECM nerfs lasers?

Maybe someone else remembers: Did ECM nerf lasers in tabletop Battletech, or any previous mechwarrior game?
It sure as heck didn't nerf lasers in Mech Commander.

EDIT: And I see the ACH is still a lag-shielded Arctic Cheater that can tank damage like a champ.

Edited by Liquid Leopard, 17 October 2015 - 03:55 AM.