125 replies to this topic

[Lugh]

Mudhutwarrior, on 25 October 2015 - 04:26 AM, said:

I lay the blame on PGI mostly but a sizeable portion would go to the team game tryhards too. They did more to undermine new player development than anyone else in game. Now they reap what they have sown with low population.

Anything that was suggested to increase new player development was fought tooth and nail by these guys since the beginning while ignoring the fact that they were a very small minority in gaming. Most people do not understand battle tech so they need to have a system to bring them in and hold their interest. None were devolped or encouraged too late in the development.

Years of posts asking for changes to help were met with "steering wheeel underhive" and "Get good scrub'

Great way to being in fresh players you moro.......

PGI is now starting to get with the program and understand without fresh blood you have nothing. It may be too late and at this point I think I could not care less.

editted to add the NOT

[Mirkk Defwode]

Mcgral18, on 24 October 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

Sounds like a cop out to me. Why not just fix this one?

You know, instead of making new mechanics like Ghost Damage, take two hours and edit the bloody .XML files?

http://mwomercs.com/...gs-ahoy-pgiplz/

It's not that hard, yet never happens.



Tina still hasn't looked at my question about the balance process. Guess it might be time to just contact someone else, as the Community Manager must be too busy (and flooded with PMs) to answer community questions.

I don't think I can agree with this more. The engine and the equipment all work off XML files with set parameters. Hell most games do that in some sort of scripting language to make them easily customizable to address issues on the fly more readily.

-----------------------------

Part of our balance issues begin with the poor translation from the table top numbers, and then a lack of adjustments based on those original individual stats. The lack of a proper heatscale...or more precisely the negative impacts of running hot...have also lead to the current combat system of everyone trying to run as hot as possible all the time then backing out to cool off.

There are just root mechanical issues that need to be addressed for balance to work. I think the size scale for sensors is an interesting concept and it was something that was played around with for the sensor systems in Mechcommander 2. I'd be interested to see how that plays out from their current balance pass but it doesn't look to address the weapon damage and heatscale issues that persist. Nor does it address the PPFLD that's been a constant complaint.

Some elements I almost feel need to be addressed from scratch to remedy them as the original approach just hasn't worked out well. It's part of the iterative process in development, they tried something...people don't like it. Functionally it "works" but not in a manner that a portion of the user base feels is appropriate/fun. While A lot of people will disagree with that statement unto itself I've seen people post suggestions that I feel would be improvements on the title and remove the need for things like "ghost damage" and "ghost heat" with are not intuitive to the users. Even experienced players look at those systems and don't fully understand them.

Designing systems for this should be a fairly transparent process and not be geared toward giving an advantage to one playstyle or another. All design elements attempt to do that from level design giving a semblance of equality to weapon design clearly not making one weapon vastly superior to another. In Battletech most of the weapons fit a purposeful niche that gave them unique advantages to go with the disadvantages. I feel a lot of those characteristics have been homogenized to the point that all lasers are often lumped together in "take as many as possible of the same kind"

While I criticize PGI for their efforts I haven't insulted them. I've often provided constructive feedback and a few alternative designs to the existing ones in an attempt to eliminate phantom systems that mechanically just don't make sense in the universe. This fictional universe is both robust in it's tabletop mechanics and in it's lore allowing for some flexibility in the translation. The best example to give is an AC2 translates really into Autocannon Class 2 - so it does roughly 2 Damage per turn. It doesn't specify if it's automatic fire, burst fire, semi-auto - and the authors of the fiction have given use background for different versions of it having different behaviors. All of the implementations we currently have in game are correct. We just don't have every other version of it made that *may* exist in the universe. That was PGI's call to make it that way.

[Lugh]

Mirkk Defwode, on 27 October 2015 - 11:19 AM, said:

I don't think I can agree with this more. The engine and the equipment all work off XML files with set parameters. Hell most games do that in some sort of scripting language to make them easily customizable to address issues on the fly more readily.

-----------------------------

Part of our balance issues begin with the poor translation from the table top numbers, and then a lack of adjustments based on those original individual stats. The lack of a proper heatscale...or more precisely the negative impacts of running hot...have also lead to the current combat system of everyone trying to run as hot as possible all the time then backing out to cool off.

There are just root mechanical issues that need to be addressed for balance to work. I think the size scale for sensors is an interesting concept and it was something that was played around with for the sensor systems in Mechcommander 2. I'd be interested to see how that plays out from their current balance pass but it doesn't look to address the weapon damage and heatscale issues that persist. Nor does it address the PPFLD that's been a constant complaint.

Some elements I almost feel need to be addressed from scratch to remedy them as the original approach just hasn't worked out well. It's part of the iterative process in development, they tried something...people don't like it. Functionally it "works" but not in a manner that a portion of the user base feels is appropriate/fun. While A lot of people will disagree with that statement unto itself I've seen people post suggestions that I feel would be improvements on the title and remove the need for things like "ghost damage" and "ghost heat" with are not intuitive to the users. Even experienced players look at those systems and don't fully understand them.

Designing systems for this should be a fairly transparent process and not be geared toward giving an advantage to one playstyle or another. All design elements attempt to do that from level design giving a semblance of equality to weapon design clearly not making one weapon vastly superior to another. In Battletech most of the weapons fit a purposeful niche that gave them unique advantages to go with the disadvantages. I feel a lot of those characteristics have been homogenized to the point that all lasers are often lumped together in "take as many as possible of the same kind"

While I criticize PGI for their efforts I haven't insulted them. I've often provided constructive feedback and a few alternative designs to the existing ones in an attempt to eliminate phantom systems that mechanically just don't make sense in the universe. This fictional universe is both robust in it's tabletop mechanics and in it's lore allowing for some flexibility in the translation. The best example to give is an AC2 translates really into Autocannon Class 2 - so it does roughly 2 Damage per turn. It doesn't specify if it's automatic fire, burst fire, semi-auto - and the authors of the fiction have given use background for different versions of it having different behaviors. All of the implementations we currently have in game are correct. We just don't have every other version of it made that *may* exist in the universe. That was PGI's call to make it that way.

The really weird thing is that all the stuff they are having trouble with is things THEY MADE UP. Had they stuck to TT rules in the entirety (ESP the HEATSCALE Hardcap) everything would be fine.

But they took, now 30 years, of game balance and tossed it out the window.

[Mirkk Defwode]

KuroNyra, on 25 October 2015 - 01:11 AM, said:

Like Hawken, like World of Tank, like War Thunder, like Armored Warfare, like Warhammer Vermintide, like a sh!tload of games. Except players KNOW it's going to be hard at first. But they will after a few match start to understand what is going on.
Heck, sme will even come to the forum and see all the tips.

War Thunder, World of Tanks are both tier based. You're new to the game...start in Tier 1. Have a WW1 tank. Have fun shooting other WW1 and 1930's era tanks prior to the tech boom in weapons technology that went from 1930-1945 weaponry. The same rules apply for anything made by Gaijin and Wargaming.net. It's a means of balancing the user base by limiting the technology available to them.

Technically Battletech has that tier system, it exists in tabletop and is based on when the unit was manufactured and what technology they are using. We could do the same thing by going through the eras and limiting the technology but those systems were sorted with the BV balance values to make it so you could have 6 units from 3025 fight against 3 units from 3055 and have it equate out to their "combat effectiveness."

As I haven't played Vermintide or Armoured Warfare, I can't attest to those. I do know Killing Floor is akin to Vermintide and that gives difficulty options when starting out, so if you're new - play on easy.

MWO doesn't have these mitigating factors for new users and even with a shiny new tutorial and an arrow indicator to help people learn to orient themselves it isn't a friendly new user experience. New users are immediately placed into the PSR rank of Tier 3...which means they can be matched with Tier 1 and 2 players...the most experienced and "skilled" groupings as they're currently setup. It doesn't have a safety net for those users to learn from and will likely be a poor experience to start with.

While personally I don't have issues with that and my issues in the new user experience rest more within the economics of it. As well as the 3 mech requirement for skill unlocks. Have you ever explained that to a new user? I have. The frustration in the voices of friends at having them see how the income works and that they need to acquire 2 more of the same chassis to do much of anything was somewhat of a death knell for them playing the game. They don't play anymore by the way, got tired of trying to acquire funds to purchase mechs, make customizations, and feel any sense of progression. That was with just buying Inner Sphere lights like the Spider and Firestarter.

Tordin, on 25 October 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

Have to agree with you. All the module nonsense should instead be upgrades or equipment on the mechs. Have them balanced against, let say ECM or something if not, make em pricey. Just not bloody pricey. I dont know if modules are lore based but they should be removed completely or have a different role.

BTW. I have NEVER used modules, not once. I do fine without any (ok I used airstrike and uav 1-2 times, thats it) even if Im at a lower tier (soon to reach the next). I recommend try ending the module addiction ASAP

Modules as a system didn't exist in table top. Infact a lot of the systems PGI has in place didn't.

I also have never used any modules, I also refuse to use consumables. If you want those things - add a 13th position on the team for a "Mechcommander" that has those as consumables in their abilities and to give commands on the map. Akin to Battlefield...which is usually a useless position.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Big deal. It isn't like Phase 2 added anything special.

http://mwomercs.com/...oct-8-feedback/

Let me know when they add something to CW is focused toward the long term life of MWO.

[Pika]

Mirkk Defwode, on 27 October 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

A New users are immediately placed into the PSR rank of Tier 3...which means they can be matched with Tier 1 and 2 players...the most experienced and "skilled" groupings as they're currently setup. It doesn't have a safety net for those users to learn from and will likely be a poor experience to start with.

Your argument is sound, makes perfect sense and I totally agree with 90% of everything you said.

Jut one small nitpick is that I think new players start at Rank 4, not 3. Meaning they can't get in with T1~