166 replies to this topic

[Foust]

On the topic of the crosshair flashing without a lock, the only item that I saw mentioned that this change could be addressing is the sweeping of a laser at range fishing for a hit. In that context, I can see why they wanted to remove it. However, that hit display needs to be consistent. Either the reticule flashes with any hit (regardless of lock state) or it never flashes. The decoupling of the flash based on lock, from my perspective, feels bad. All or nothing.

On the topic of damage being dependent on lock-on. I understand the reasoning of trying to reign in laser vomit, but this simply feels clumsy. Again this is a consistency issue. Lasers are affected, but ballistics are not? I believe that there are far simpler and consistent changes that could address this particular issue. The most controversial of which is adding a cone of fire while not locked. (I can hear the snorts of derision from here) Another alternative would be to simply make the weapons lose all damage past their optimal range without a lock. I disagree that this is destroying the true nature of the game though.

On the topic of heat sink changes. I have been trying to come up with a way to make singles useful, and I got nothing. I mean, have at the changes I'm just not expecting them to be of value outside of a stock only mode.

On the topics of firepower, armor and the "nature of the game".....

Nature of the game. From a "win the match" perspective, sure. Firepower/Armor trumps just about everything else. Speed has a place toward the top of that list, but still its all about how much damage you can put out vs how much you can take. It's why heavies are so popular, clan heavies in particular. You know all this.

I can not be more on board with the idea of making Clan and IS chassis functionally opposed to each other, your Clan as glass cannons, IS as bastions of longevity. Both factions desperately need identity.

I would propose as you state, clans being glass cannons. They are purpose built to be highly armed and modular, such that each weapon behaves the same way on a stormcrow as it does on a direwolf. Often these designs would sacrifice armor or heat sinks for extra weapons. Adaptability and offense above all else.

Innersphere chassis on the other hand are designed around the weapons that they are carrying. These chassis are purpose built to not only handle the demands of the weapon, but to have that weapon perform at or above its peek efficiency. The right tool for the right job is the mentality of the IS.

PGI started along these lines when clans were first introduced by making clan lasers have long burn times, ballistics rattled off multiple shells, missiles ripple fired and components were locked. Clans had the identity of having hard hitting, long range weapons but they would have to face their opponents to deliver it. Then the masses cried. PGI started backing down. Burn times got reduced. Spacing between shells got reduced. Heat got reduced. Clans end up being straight upgrades to IS chassis.

Same with the IS quirks. We had heavy single weapon quirks per chassis. Then the masses cried. So PGI splits the specific quirks to add generic energy/ballistics quirks as well. Again backing away from a decision to give personality to the faction, and resulting in more generic robot. (I know this test is not about about quirks, but run a non quirked HBK-4G on the PTS and tell me you don't feel the difference)

I do not believe that there is a state in which "balance" can be achieved without embracing this kind of "imperfect balance". There is no way to make up for the weight and critical disparity between Clan and IS loadouts unless there are secondary factors for balance. Bake that into the personality of the factions.

[L3mming2]

jay35, on 14 October 2015 - 06:20 PM, said:

That's not what they're saying.

Everyone's got a voice but people who understand mechanics and demonstrate skill should naturally have more say in things.

understand mechanics yes, demonstrate skill no...

competitive players have a hell of a load more motivation to scream murder when there top performer is in danger of getting put a down a bit

Edited by L3mming2, 15 October 2015 - 08:53 AM.

[Sjorpha]

L3mming2, on 15 October 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

understand mechanics yes, demonstrate skill no...

competitive players have a hell of a load more motivation to scream murder when there top performer is in danger of getting put a down a bit

That isn't actually true, the better a player is the less he/she depends on playing a specific way, the best players just sees the winning move and makes it whatever it is. You can't put competitive players down by changing mechanics unless you are introducing enough randomness to remove the skill component of the game altogether, the better players are the faster they adapt to new metas. Unfortunately all non-randomness changes always tend to solidify the gap between good and bad.

Look at MTG for example every time a new expansion enters the standard format. You might think that it would be a chance for new players to shine. Nope, truth is that the faster it changes the stronger the advantage of past experience becomes. You are more likely to see new faces in permanent formats like modern or legacy, because it is actually possible to catch up there.

Still I agree that good players don't automatically know better what is good for the game. But you have to recognize that it IS more likely that they do, otherwise you are fooling yourself.

[Sjorpha]

Foust, on 15 October 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

On the topic of the crosshair flashing without a lock, the only item that I saw mentioned that this change could be addressing is the sweeping of a laser at range fishing for a hit. In that context, I can see why they wanted to remove it. However, that hit display needs to be consistent. Either the reticule flashes with any hit (regardless of lock state) or it never flashes. The decoupling of the flash based on lock, from my perspective, feels bad. All or nothing.

I don't see how it is inconsistent in any way. It consistently flashes with a lock, and consistently does not without a lock. It's no less consistent than a missile lock or target info gathering or anything else that depends on targeting. There is no randomness to it and you know exactly what the requirements are.

Not liking it is a different thing of course, and I can understand that. But it's not inconsistent in any way.

[Foust]

Sjorpha, on 15 October 2015 - 09:20 AM, said:

I don't see how it is inconsistent in any way. It consistently flashes with a lock, and consistently does not without a lock. It's no less consistent than a missile lock or target info gathering or anything else that depends on targeting. There is no randomness to it and you know exactly what the requirements are.

Not liking it is a different thing of course, and I can understand that. But it's not inconsistent in any way.

I get what your saying. I still feel that from a hit perspective, adding the lock requirement to display that hit flash decouples it from the hit itself. It is now not only a function of hit, it is also now a function of lock. You can score a hit and get no flash, or you can score a hit and get a flash if you are also locked. It may not be inconsistent as you pointed out, but to me it feels inconsistent based on what I expect from a hit.

I target all the time, so it is particularly jarring to me when I shoot something quick with out a lock and don't get that indication even though I see the weapon impact.

[Sjorpha]

Foust, on 15 October 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

I get what your saying. I still feel that from a hit perspective, adding the lock requirement to display that hit flash decouples it from the hit itself. It is now not only a function of hit, it is also now a function of lock. You can score a hit and get no flash, or you can score a hit and get a flash if you are also locked. It may not be inconsistent as you pointed out, but to me it feels inconsistent based on what I expect from a hit.

I target all the time, so it is particularly jarring to me when I shoot something quick with out a lock and don't get that indication even though I see the weapon impact.

Ok, so inconsistency in the sense of not matching past experience. If that kind of "inconsistency" is to be avoided you could never actually change anything, since any change is bound to...you know...change things from what you're used to.

I'd argue that if you got used to the unlocked damage feedback (which is pretty MWO specific in the first place) then you could get used to lock dependent damage feedback as well.

In any case the mere fact of being used to something doesn't really say if a change is good or bad, you might be used to a mechanic and grown addicted to it despite it being bad design.

I have no problem with the simple argument that "I prefer to get damage feedback without lock.", that's a perfectly fine opinion.

I personally prefer the damage feedback to be lock dependent because it's more realistic and strengthens the tactical importance of scouting.

Heimdelight seems to argue that the game is too old for a change like that, but from my perspective the game is in practice in early development still. It just took very long to get to this point, but time past alone doesn't make the game more mature, I feel like PGI is finally catching up to a normal development pace and this is absolutely not the time to be afraid of changing things. Actually big changes are needed and they need to happen before steam release, which will function as a kind of rerelease of the game if it's good enough by then.

Heim also argues that the game is complex already, this is another thing I completely disagree with. This is a very simple game from what I'm used to, and I think it could stand being a lot more complex and have much more manual simulation features. It also lacks complex counter play and macro strategy, there are enormous amounts of wonderful grognard potential to this IP and it's kinda wasted as a pure arena shooter. It could be both a complex arena shooter and a strategic simulation experience if done right. For example I'd like to try manual convergence, passive and active radar settings, incremental heat penalties, more complex damage modeling with actuator failure and so on and so forth. I know a large portion of the fanbase would like that kind of complexity too, along with simulator fans worldwide.

Edited by Sjorpha, 15 October 2015 - 10:59 AM.

[Foust]

Sjorpha, on 15 October 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

Heim also argues that the game is complex already, this is another thing I completely disagree with. This is a very simple game from what I'm used to, and I think it could stand being a lot more complex and have much more manual simulation features. It also lacks complex counter play and macro strategy, there are enormous amounts of wonderful grognard potential to this IP and it's kinda wasted as a pure arena shooter. It could be both a complex arena shooter and a strategic simulation experience if done right. For example I'd like to try manual convergence, passive and active radar settings, incremental heat penalties, more complex damage modeling with actuator failure and so on and so forth. I know a large portion of the fanbase would like that kind of complexity too, along with simulator fans worldwide.

What you describe here is what I signed on for back in founder times. MWO will never realize that vision, much to my dismay.

[Sjorpha]

Foust, on 15 October 2015 - 11:10 AM, said:

What you describe here is what I signed on for back in founder times. MWO will never realize that vision, much to my dismay.

Probably not they way we'd like no, but isn't it a good thing that PGI is prepared to try out more complex mechanics, like the damage and feedback relation to targeting and so on. I shows they are interested in making the game more complex to play, even if we don't like some specific idea. Of course that's easy for me to say since I actually like these changes

[heimdelight]

Sjorpha, on 15 October 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

Heimdelight seems to argue that the game is too old for a change like that, but from my perspective the game is in practice in early development still. It just took very long to get to this point, but time past alone doesn't make the game more mature, I feel like PGI is finally catching up to a normal development pace and this is absolutely not the time to be afraid of changing things. Actually big changes are needed and they need to happen before steam release, which will function as a kind of rerelease of the game if it's good enough by then.

Heim also argues that the game is complex already, this is another thing I completely disagree with. This is a very simple game from what I'm used to, and I think it could stand being a lot more complex and have much more manual simulation features. It also lacks complex counter play and macro strategy, there are enormous amounts of wonderful grognard potential to this IP and it's kinda wasted as a pure arena shooter. It could be both a complex arena shooter and a strategic simulation experience if done right. For example I'd like to try manual convergence, passive and active radar settings, incremental heat penalties, more complex damage modeling with actuator failure and so on and so forth. I know a large portion of the fanbase would like that kind of complexity too, along with simulator fans worldwide.

Making it more complex for a developer that has had issues balancing the game before it was complex at all, after they have shown inability to balance the game by adding said complexities (Ghost Heat achieved very little IMO), would only exacerbate the issues you have with the game.

You have to approach this from a different angle than that. Why is the game not complex? Because there are only a few good types of builds. Why are there only a few good types of builds? Because the game is not near balanced. Why is the game not balanced? Because it's difficult to balance the existing mechanics as it is, and this is PGI's first real attempt at truly balancing a game they were a part of IMO. How do we know PGI was unable to balance things? They haven't had consistent success at any point in time. Knowledgeable players whether they be casual or competitive have expressed far more disappointment than satisfaction with balance in MWO for the entire time it's existed.

The game is too old. Why? Because you are introducing entirely new systems to balance and complexities that gear towards simulation rather than what the game is. You have a community who knows how the game plays out and has for 3 years, yet PGI doesn't reach out to them for feedback during design.

MechWarrior Online is nothing, absolutely nothing beyond building a 'Mech and 12v12 Player vs. Player First Person Shooter. It is far more complex than games like Call of Duty, Halo, etc. I played those games for years and still do occasionally. That is why I came to MWO in the first place.

Therefore, decisions should be made according to MWO's true model: 12v12 PvP FPS. That is all it's been for years, and CW has been nothing more, either. These changes do not make the game better by any means, they are bad changes and the issues they are solving can be solved far more efficiently.

If the approach is bad, the mechanics are bad, and the issues can be solved better, that means these changes are bad.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Sjorpha, on 15 October 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

In any case the mere fact of being used to something doesn't really say if a change is good or bad, you might be used to a mechanic and grown addicted to it despite it being bad design.

I have no problem with the simple argument that "I prefer to get damage feedback without lock.", that's a perfectly fine opinion.

I personally prefer the damage feedback to be lock dependent because it's more realistic and strengthens the tactical importance of scouting.

It is not bad design. Hit markers are not, nor have they ever been in any game I've ever heard of, an element of immersion. They are a quality of life feature for multiplayer games, not a mech function; a real live pilot wouldn't need hitmarkers.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 15 October 2015 - 12:05 PM.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

I think my disagreement here is more fundamental, and a matter of personal opinion.

I do not agree that TTK is getting too short.

If I can take TWO well-registered hits from an AC/20 in a ACH at close range ( <120m ) and remain every inch as combat effective after, then the problem isn't that it's too quick/easy to kill a mech. And that's happened more than once lately to me.

The problem, IMO, is that I put a 140km/h light mech in front of a dual AC/20 KGC at <120m and didn't pay dearly for it. The problem is that TTK is too long, and it makes us sloppy in maneuver.

Again, that's just an opinion, and I know and respect that others don't share it. No worries.

The too-short TTK is the assumption I mentioned before, it would seem. And I'd bet that lengthening it will only lead to MORE sloppy maneuver and FEWER opportunities to succeed in light mechs.

[Skarlock]

I think the best approach would be to simply reduce clan laser range, optimal and max range. Reduce clan small pulse and clan er smalls by only a small percentage, but increase the cooldown so the dps is less than IS lasers. Clans win on alpha, but lose on efficiency and range. Another approach would be to increase IS small pulse and small laser range so those weapons would actually see some use outside of quirked and specialized mechs. Reduce clan med pulse range by a significant amount so the IS medium pulse is longer range. Heavily reduce clan ER medium, clan large pulse, and clan er large lasers so the IS equivalents have a good deal more range.

This creates a dynamic where clan laser boats have to use their speed and mobility to close in to optimal ranges, while IS mechs have to focus on position and taking maximum advantage of firing lanes to maximize their damage before the clans close in. Of course the additional armor would help equalize things once clan mechs have closed the distance.

One of the basic issues with MWO is that one side (clans) have more speed in general on their pinnacle mechs, but ALSO have more range and more firepower. Other than uberquirked IS variants which increase DPS and sustainability only, the IS has few answers to this combination of speed, range, alpha strike firepower, and sustainability thanks to boating ridiculous amounts of smaller clan double heat sinks and superior tonnage efficiency on weapons and engine, without the downside of IS XL.

I applauded PGI for being bold enough to experiment with various armor and structure quirks, but they fell short because they didn't commit to it with larger, more significant increases defensively. Not a SINGLE IS mech received a speed bonus for example (only reverse speed and acceleration) yet the one mech in the game that has a general speed bonus... Is the summoner. The highlander 732B is the single most heavily armored mech in the game, and the Zeus has significant armor bonuses as well, but they never bothered to go back and evaluate how much of an impact those bonuses have when you're stuck with inner sphere tech base. Certainly neither mech has become a solid meta choice in spite of plenty of top level players owning one or both of these mechs.

As a player who financially supports this game by owning the Resistance 1 pack, Masakhari collection, Invasion 2, 3, Urbanmech collectors pack, and who has already pre-ordered the Origins pack, it saddens me that my only major regret is buying Resistance 1. Bottom line PGI, if you don't give us better balance between the clan and IS tech base, there's no reason for me to continuing to buy half of the mechs you release. I'd totally buy the Warhammer pack... If I knew the mech wouldn't be hamstrung by low firepower and awful speed, and extremely sub optimal quirks compared to what I could get from any clan mech without *any* quirks. I'd love to get the marauder... If I hadn't already done all the builds I would use and come to the conclusion it's simply not worth buying something I will never use and that will just collect dust in my mechbays.

Balance isn't just about competitive game play, it directly impacts your companies bottom line if I can't have faith in the value of my purchases. I don't want to feel like I'm throwing my money away on very lackluster mechs, nor do I want to feel like I HAVE to buy every pack you release because of power creep to stay competitive. It's a fine line to draw, but that's just the reality of the situation.

[heimdelight]

TheRAbbi, on 15 October 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

I think my disagreement here is more fundamental, and a matter of personal opinion.

I do not agree that TTK is getting too short.

If I can take TWO well-registered hits from an AC/20 in a ACH at close range ( <120m ) and remain every inch as combat effective after, then the problem isn't that it's too quick/easy to kill a mech. And that's happened more than once lately to me.

The problem, IMO, is that I put a 140km/h light mech in front of a dual AC/20 KGC at <120m and didn't pay dearly for it. The problem is that TTK is too long, and it makes us sloppy in maneuver.

Again, that's just an opinion, and I know and respect that others don't share it. No worries.

The too-short TTK is the assumption I mentioned before, it would seem. And I'd bet that lengthening it will only lead to MORE sloppy maneuver and FEWER opportunities to succeed in light mechs.

Time to kill being too short is not really an arguable thing, it's quite factual. Ask any light pilots who used to play before 12v12 was introduced, before Clans, quirks and modules were available. Light 'Mechs had much more freedom due to the shorter amounts of firepower being dealt and lower amounts of 'Mechs on the field. Statistically, with more 'Mechs, that means less skirmishing since there are less opportunities. Light 'Mechs had a lot more flexibility in these situations.

I want to recreate that. Most Inner Sphere lights AND mediums (you focus on lights, but mediums suffer in the same way due to very similar armor amounts) need armor buffs for TTK to be increased, so that they last longer and are able to do more. I don't think low alpha builds will need to worry much if they get some armor buffs themselves.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Skarlock, on 15 October 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think the best approach would be to simply reduce clan laser range, optimal and max range. Reduce clan small pulse and clan er smalls by only a small percentage, but increase the cooldown so the dps is less than IS lasers. Clans win on alpha, but lose on efficiency and range. Another approach would be to increase IS small pulse and small laser range so those weapons would actually see some use outside of quirked and specialized mechs. Reduce clan med pulse range by a significant amount so the IS medium pulse is longer range. Heavily reduce clan ER medium, clan large pulse, and clan er large lasers so the IS equivalents have a good deal more range.

I'm sorry friend, but do you have any idea how much you'd have to increase the cool-down of clan small lasers to bring their DPS below that of the IS equivalent? more than 50%. Don't maim clan smalls, buff IS smalls, plain and simple. Nobody uses IS standard smalls at all at this point.

[Mystere]

BigBucket, on 14 October 2015 - 06:02 PM, said:

I disagree that the true nature of the game is/should be natural firepower as you put it. In my opinion, point and click is not a thinking man's shooter and carefully added mechanics/rng can enhance a game.

The laser range reduction vs. target lock is one way to accomplish this, though in the end I think it will only help to enforce the PPC/AC/Gauss meta. I am of the school of cone of fire and adjusting heat capacity/dissipation to keep firepower in check.

And I am of the school of convergence. I say have zero weapon convergence when target is not locked. Alternatively, have a fixed convergence point set by player if target is not locked.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Mystere, on 15 October 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

And I am of the school of convergence. I say have zero weapon convergence when target is not locked. Alternatively, have a fixed convergence point set by player if target is not locked.

The idea of convergence is great because it adds a balancing act between storing your weapons all in one component or spreading them out. Spread out your weapons and you're harder to disarm, group them together and firing without a lock is more effective. This would give mechs like the Nova a niche as blind fighters.

[Livewyr]

Even if they doubled the armor *again* it still wouldn't solve the problem.

It would just mean that the Large laser stalker would take 8 seconds to mangle the Side Torso of your mech, instead of 4.


TTK is too short because of a combination of perfect convergence (which only lasers get to take advantage of 100% of the time) light weight/small size, heat system flaws...and the hitscan of lasers.

A Laser Vomit Ebon Jaguar can put 54 damage into the side torso of a mech, as soon as it sees it. There is no dodging, there is no calculating how much to lead, there is only
1: Point
2: Click
3: Drag (for moving target)
4: Make sure the reticle stays red.

If you doubled the Shadowcat's armor from where it it now... it could take 3 of those 54 point alpha strikes, instead of just 2, before losing half or more of its weapons.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

heimdelight, on 15 October 2015 - 12:55 PM, said:

Time to kill being too short is not really an arguable thing, it's quite factual. Ask any light pilots who used to play before 12v12 was introduced, before Clans, quirks and modules were available. Light 'Mechs had much more freedom due to the shorter amounts of firepower being dealt and lower amounts of 'Mechs on the field. Statistically, with more 'Mechs, that means less skirmishing since there are less opportunities. Light 'Mechs had a lot more flexibility in these situations.

I want to recreate that. Most Inner Sphere lights AND mediums (you focus on lights, but mediums suffer in the same way due to very similar armor amounts) need armor buffs for TTK to be increased, so that they last longer and are able to do more. I don't think low alpha builds will need to worry much if they get some armor buffs themselves.

Sorry, but no. It's NOT factual, it's OPINION.

And I AM one of those light pilots from back in the 8v8 days of open beta.

[SirNotlag]

I know we are going to simply disagree on what needs to be done but I feel like throwing my opinion on here.

Personally I find this isn't ham fisting Info tech into the game but actually making it compliment the primary focus of the game which is destroying other mechs, as it is 12 vs 12 skirmish. By linking info tech to damage for lasers, and confirmation of hits they have found a way to make it a very effective pillar of balance. Laser boat mechs now either have to have good sensors themselves or be paired with a scouting mech for max efficiency.

As for not getting confirmation on hits when not targeting it hasn't bothered me there are enough visual clues that a shot connected when using PPCs or ballistics and lasers always hit where your pointing anyway so its not to hard to tell when your actually hitting someone.

I really hope they keep these changes just with maybe some tweaking but I think its really really good.



As for those that feel it should be a blanket approach to all weapons I have to disagree. The lasers are hit scan so if you have the range all you have to do is point and click for damage, and i feel some of the laser ranges have become ridiculous. When using ballistics you have to lead the target which is much harder to do as mechs have different speeds and can zig zag to avoid hits.

Lore wise this also does not bother me, as I can imagine that a laser has to be focused to a specific point and range for maximum damage, which the targeting computer will do automatically but only if you have target lock. There is no feasible reason that a bullet would care if you have target lock or not you're either in effective range and hit for full damage or your outside of effective range for less damage.

Leaving ballistic and PPCs unaffected also allows for a work around against waiting for target acquisition you can just pop up fire and pop back and still do full damage if you've hit.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Livewyr, on 15 October 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

Even if they doubled the armor *again* it still wouldn't solve the problem.

It would just mean that the Large laser stalker would take 8 seconds to mangle the Side Torso of your mech, instead of 4.

Uhm... isn't that what we are looking for? you just said doubling the TTK means nothing... you want it to be MORE than twice what it is right now?

Livewyr, on 15 October 2015 - 01:13 PM, said:

TTK is too short because of a combination of perfect convergence (which only lasers get to take advantage of 100% of the time) light weight/small size, heat system flaws...and the hitscan of lasers.

A Laser Vomit Ebon Jaguar can put 54 damage into the side torso of a mech, as soon as it sees it. There is no dodging, there is no calculating how much to lead, there is only
1: Point
2: Click
3: Drag (for moving target)
4: Make sure the reticle stays red.

You've ignored the fact that you can roll damage from lasers quite effectivey. As a medium mech brawler, I'm much more afraid of Gauss rifles and large caliber IS ACs than I am of lasers. These types of ballistics deal their damage up front, in one place, and cannot be spread across your hull.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 15 October 2015 - 01:41 PM.