25 replies to this topic

[FalconerGray]

I've been playing Mechwarrior games on and off for nearly 20 years now, after instantly falling in love with the universe via Mechwarrior 2. I've played through each of the titles and their various expansions more times than I care to remember (except I never found MW3:PM) and I don't ever recall anywhere near the level of balance issues and problems that make up everyday life in MWO. So what's different?

Perhaps most important to my perceptions is the fact that poor (or no) internet meant that I never had the opportunity to play any of these games in a multiplayer environment. Is there anyone here who might be able to recount there experiences and provide insight as to what was different?

I had a great time whenever I was playing one of the older titles, but I often find MWO to be draining and full of frustration. Is there a measurable reason for this? Or do I have rose tinted glasses on and simply never experienced the right conditions back then (multiplayer)?

[FupDup]

MWO has an overall better control scheme for mechs, and a better artstyle. The Omnipod system is fun, even if there are some sub-par mechs that are hardlocked out of customization because of it...

I did however like MW3's visual and weapon FX more than MWO's, and MW4's mechlab more than MWO's.

EDIT: And I also liked MW3's heat system more.

Edited by FupDup, 15 October 2015 - 04:32 PM.

[Bilbo]

legatoblues, on 15 October 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

I've been playing Mechwarrior games on and off for nearly 20 years now, after instantly falling in love with the universe via Mechwarrior 2. I've played through each of the titles and their various expansions more times than I care to remember (except I never found MW3:PM) and I don't ever recall anywhere near the level of balance issues and problems that make up everyday life in MWO. So what's different?

Perhaps most important to my perceptions is the fact that poor (or no) internet meant that I never had the opportunity to play any of these games in a multiplayer environment. Is there anyone here who might be able to recount there experiences and provide insight as to what was different?

I had a great time whenever I was playing one of the older titles, but I often find MWO to be draining and full of frustration. Is there a measurable reason for this? Or do I have rose tinted glasses on and simply never experienced the right conditions back then (multiplayer)?

you answered your own question. You never played the game against people. They were balanced for campaign play. They weren't balanced at all for pvp.

[Shredhead]

Haven't played MW2 multiplayer, but MW3 + 4 were simply atrociously unbalanced. Take the powercreep clan tech introduced in MWO, then multiply it by 10, as here PGI is at least trying to level the playing field.
MW3 had absolutely no restrictions at all in the mechlab, and MW4 was basically just the race to the heaviest platform that could take the most Light Gauss.

[FalconerGray]

Bilbo, on 15 October 2015 - 04:31 PM, said:

you answered your own question. You never played the game against people. They were balanced for campaign play. They weren't balanced at all for pvp.

I thought this would be the case, but wanted to hear some first hand experience.

I still love MWO but, like seemingly many others, it isn't the game that I wanted it to be. But I'll still keep playing - because despite all that, it's still a Mechwarrior game.

Edited by legatoblues, 15 October 2015 - 04:39 PM.

[Pale Jackal]

Good things about MWO:

1) Lasers have a duration, rather than doing instaneous damage.

2) You can use arm-mounted weapons reasonably well. (You could in MW4, at least, to some extent, but I think you had to rely on free looking without a reticle.) Oh, the fact that actuators have an effect (like, do I want an AC20 or a lower arm actuator) is kind of cool.

On the fence about:

3) Scouting is required to know where the enemy is located, rather than having omni-present radar. Making lights more valuable is cool, turning a corner and getting lit up by the other team is not.

Honestly, I wouldn't say MWO balance is all that bad, at least compared to other MW titles. It's the fact that it's a relatively "budget" title, with issues like SRM hitreg, and a 4+ year development time to get us to our current point, oh, and it's F2P.

I enjoy MWO, but I wouldn't recommend it to other non-Mechwarrior fans with a straight face. I feel obligated to say, "I like MWO, but it's terrible, and expensive."

Edited by Pale Jackal, 15 October 2015 - 04:45 PM.

[Wildstreak]

MWO has live opponents vs AIs from previous titles.
IS Missiles hit all at once instead of stream, ACs do single shot damage instead of stream.
Pulse Lasers are not God Mode like they were in MW2.
PPCs, despite people's complaints, in MWO hit faster than MW2.
You do not have MW1's Super SRM / LRM Missile.
MWO currently has no single player story so all you get is repeat grind matches against other players.

Edited by Wildstreak, 15 October 2015 - 04:53 PM.

[Bloody]

the other mechwarrior titles had a sense of progression, you started out with a light/medium mech with IS tech , moved up and eventually ended up playing whatever you wanted with whatever best tech you wanted. MWO tries to do something silly, stop the progression in the name of balance, it is backwards. The tech difference between IS and CLan gets completely blurred by the time we get to dark ages with IS mechs with full clan tech but still called IS.. this is what should been done with MW:O instead of insane nerfs, quirks etc

[FalconerGray]

I think one of the main things I miss from the older games is truly varied combat scenarios and the need to prepare yourself accordingly. You might feel unstoppable taking out your targets BVR with PPC and LRM fire, but next thing you're in a tunnel or somewhere else with extremely limited space to move and you get slaughtered by that Annihilator that you weren't prepared for.

My favourite mechs and builds through the years were generally chosen for their versatility. It was the Mad Dog, Hellbringer and Maurader IIC in MW2, the Avatar, Sunder and Shadow Cat in MW3 and the Cougar, Thanatos and Hauptmann in MW4.

I know things probably would have been different if I was forced to adapt to facing human opponents (as in MWO), but I still yearn for that earlier style of gameplay - although I certainly do acknowledge that the control scheme is excellent in MWO.

Do I have a solution? Probably not. I have ideas, but nothing that I can guarantee would be an improvement. Although I do still have dreams of an asymmetrical campaign mission-style gametype with multiple different objectives for both teams.

Pale Jackal, on 15 October 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

I enjoy MWO, but I wouldn't recommend it to other non-Mechwarrior fans with a straight face. I feel obligated to say, "I like MWO, but it's terrible, and expensive."

This is spot on for how I feel too. I cringe to think of how punishing MWO must be for someone with no Mechwarrior experience or knowledge. Mech customization should be a personal preference, not a necessity IMO.

[Tarl Cabot]

This thread is missing the others, the Multiplayer Battletech aka MPBT. GEnie's EGA MPBT 3025 (91-96) used the original Mechwarrior as its combat engine. The game was primarily PVE with stock 3025 mechs (4vs4), with Solaris gaming world being the only part that was player vs player. But at $6/$18 an hour (moved to a $3/$12 an hour towards the end) most spent their time completing combat drops for CW.

MPBT Solaris (95-2001) (SVGA Battletech 3025) was the combat engine for the next series but the actual CW never came into being. Maps were inline with EGA version but with updated mech graphics. It was primarily PVP (a player could drop solo vs 4 other AI using the same mech as the player. There were tourneys and the Houses held Solaris Succession Wars on one day every weekend using the arenas and their sectors as planetary systems and staging areas.

Then there was EA's MPBT 3025 (2001). Its combat engine was very similar MW4 than anything else. PVP with only planetary capture, but the CW everyone saw was a quickly thrown together piece the 3rd party failed to complete their portion. It was too short lived for any type of balancing to be considered.

I do not remember if it was the Solaris or EA 3025 that they play tested 12vs12 stalkers several times. The first time they ran it all 24 stalkers fired their all their LRMS at the same time, bringing the game to a standstill They kept at it though.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 October 2015 - 06:13 PM.

[El Bandito]

legatoblues, on 15 October 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

I've been playing Mechwarrior games on and off for nearly 20 years now, after instantly falling in love with the universe via Mechwarrior 2. I've played through each of the titles and their various expansions more times than I care to remember (except I never found MW3:PM) and I don't ever recall anywhere near the level of balance issues and problems that make up everyday life in MWO. So what's different?

You see those LRMs from MW2? They’ve got missile cams. Missile. Cameras.

And then there is Enhanced Imaging...

Edited by El Bandito, 15 October 2015 - 06:14 PM.

[FalconerGray]

Yes, I remember those two very well and they were glorious

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

This is spot on for how I feel too. I cringe to think of how punishing MWO must be for someone with no Mechwarrior experience or knowledge. Mech customization should be a personal preference, not a necessity IMO

The only really expense would be mechbays, any other expense would be to get things faster. As for difficulty, all the other MW games had printed up control sheets and details. Nowadays everything is digital, and most people no longer have printers to print things up like they used to, and certainly not on durable paper, and rarely do they read everything. Of course PGI has items noted on the website, but nothing that is all in one document that can be downloaded and reviewed at a later date (for those who do read most of the info )

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 15 October 2015 - 06:27 PM.

[Mad Porthos]

I played mechwarrior 2, pve and network play at the college I used to do IT work at. Played mechwarrior3 and 4, multiplayer included. As pointed out before me, these titles were completely unbalanced when it came to pvp. In extensive arguments with teamates and group members I have been decried as a blasphemer for having said such, but the fact is I remember it well, sans rose colored glasses. The pvp modes came down to learn what build works, then abuse the hell out of it as you call yourself a skilled ace. That was the fantasy they were pedalling to you in the pve and for pvp as long as there were new noobs in the gristmill, you racked up kills and only were stopped by others weilding similiar builds and a T1 CONNECTION.

By the time I quit, really quit MW4, it seemed pop tarts were the order of the day as people in 3rd person would site you, line up shots and vaporize you all while barely jetting over a distant ridge. I did the same and loathed how stale it was, playing only on no 3rd person mode servers finally, but then realizing how pointless it was.

The best mechwarrior experience I had before MWO was the actual simulator pods from virtual world enterprises, the tesla pods as well which toured conventions and found homes in various entertainment venues from 1991 onward. Still have my old pilot card as a memento. Whether for good or ill, MWO is at least TRYING. So many look back at glory days of former leagues and CWs in other games and fail to realize that those things became great in their minds do to all the effort enthusiastic fans were making to entertain themselves and flesh out the "story", often grouping and plotting things by chat and ICQ and rooms, building things into much deeper and enthused creations than the creators of the game intended. That level of engagement was more common back then and with gaming more in its infancy or youth then, it was more common to have superfans become part of development and having a huge impact on it - creating some richer experiences despite graphics and such not being so flash.

In this day and age, that crossover is not quite so common, especially because they are not targetting such a small demographic with this current game and also, despite being a relatively small studio, PGI is not created by like 5 fans... rather by a large team, and for a broader demographic.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 15 October 2015 - 06:53 PM.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Well, MWO doesn't have singleplayer, and the campaigns were really my favorite parts of the other MW titles... but there's one other key difference between MWO and the other titles:


You can drop in multiplayer in a light 'Mech and not be laughed off the field.

MW4 supported big matches compared to MWO. 32, even 64 players... and in any given game maybe one or two people on either side would be in lights.

You had no firepower, no armor, and you were facing 800m PPFLD hitscan ERLL alphas, which would not only leg you, they'd dump you on your ass... right out in the open where the 800m PPFLD Gauss/ERPPC alphas could finish you off. Want to try getting up close? Well, those lasers are just as dangerous, and so are the Gauss/ERPPC rigs, but now you also have to dodge dual LB20 if anybody had the stones to drop a brawler, which is pretty much instant death if it hits you and had enough impact force to dump an assault to the ground, so you're pretty much boned if it even grazes you. Nevermind that your hardpoints are suboptimal for mounting the weapons you should be carrying, because there are only two or three usable small weapons in the game and, with sized hardpoints, you couldn't boat the larger weapons that dominated the game. The Uller was passably good in Black Knight because it could load up 3ERLL, which was hotter than the bloody sun but was as close as a MW4 light ever got to being meta.

Assault pilots starting threads about how lights need a nerf because they keep getting their back armor chewed off? People would've looked at them like they came from Bizarro World.

So... as far as singleplayer goes, obviously every other Mechwarrior title wins. But for multiplayer? This is the best balance a MW game has ever had, period. We have small and medium weapons that don't suck, we have lights and mediums that are actually worth dropping in (even the worst lights in MWO are more viable than the very best in any previous MW game), and ultra-long-range jump snipers aren't 95% of the 'Mechs you see on the field.

[SaltBeef]

You are suffering from lack of content it is. MWO is like MW4 Multiplayer only with less options and right before MekTek took the reigns when it was dying out due to long range Pop tart Meta. No Campaign, no NPCs well until we got Captain Adams. No infantry or vehicles, and a Constant tinkering work in progress makes it difficult to adjust to the Meta changes every Semi annually to quarterly from patch changes. Seems the game is a very slow work in progress and does not follow lore as closely as the previous titles. It has way better graphics though.

Edited by SaltBeef, 15 October 2015 - 07:53 PM.

[PurpleNinja]

Adherence to BattleTech rules.

[Kiiyor]

legatoblues, on 15 October 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

I've been playing Mechwarrior games on and off for nearly 20 years now, after instantly falling in love with the universe via Mechwarrior 2. I've played through each of the titles and their various expansions more times than I care to remember (except I never found MW3:PM) and I don't ever recall anywhere near the level of balance issues and problems that make up everyday life in MWO. So what's different?

I have to very respectfully disagree on the balance part - I think MWO is by far the most balanced overall iteration of the entire MechWarrior franchise, and i've played the lot. IMHO, the gaps between the top and bottom performing mechs and equipment is generally far closer than in previous titles (unless you count stuff like flamers, in which case the gap is measured in light years). It's kind of on a knife edge - even small changes to weapon systems in MWO can elevate a weapon from 'meh' to 'OMG THIS IS SO OP I HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON THE FORUMS'.

People often use MW4 PVP as a comparison point, but the reality of that (in my experience anyway) was that there were only the barest handful of competitive mechs and loadouts, and anything outside that little clique was so noncompetitive that it might as well not exist at all.

It's the lack of a campaign that does it. You get a far greater diversity of effective loadouts for a campaign, because the AI doesn't exploit build and mech weakness anywhere near as perfectly as other players do.

[FalconerGray]

I think you've summed it up quite well, Kiiyor. Certainly can't disagree with any of that.

I guess it must just be the nature of PVP gaming, although I wish there was some other way around all the downsides that come with it.

Will still be trying to gather people for stock drops any chance I get though!

[Vellron2005]

legatoblues, on 15 October 2015 - 04:27 PM, said:

I've been playing Mechwarrior games on and off for nearly 20 years now, after instantly falling in love with the universe via Mechwarrior 2. I've played through each of the titles and their various expansions more times than I care to remember (except I never found MW3:PM) and I don't ever recall anywhere near the level of balance issues and problems that make up everyday life in MWO. So what's different?

Perhaps most important to my perceptions is the fact that poor (or no) internet meant that I never had the opportunity to play any of these games in a multiplayer environment. Is there anyone here who might be able to recount there experiences and provide insight as to what was different?

I had a great time whenever I was playing one of the older titles, but I often find MWO to be draining and full of frustration. Is there a measurable reason for this? Or do I have rose tinted glasses on and simply never experienced the right conditions back then (multiplayer)?

Well the basic and most important difference is that previous MW games were PVE games with some multiplayer features. MWO however is a PVP multiplayer game, and everything i MWO was built around that fact.

Mechs play, feel, and work differently when you have a 15 minute engagement versus live opponents and when you have missions with clear goals and a rich storyline.

Just the fact that in MWO, you don't have to "grind" the whole game to get an assault mech... you can basically buy one straight out of the academy (after 25 matches and completed tutorial).

In MWO everything serves the deathmatch game style, while in previous games, everything was story oriented.

Biggest difference however is the overwhelming lack of immersion in MWO.. after years of being playable, MWO offers very little real feel of the immense universe that is BattleTech.. Most previous MW games offered more of this immersive feeling in the opening cinematic..