364 replies to this topic

[Gas Guzzler]

Gyrok, on 17 November 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

Show me a DW that can do more than 54 kph, or one that has TT speed like a KGC...let alone one that can mount FLD AC40 and brawl like a champ with more speed/twist.

Sure...there are builds where the DW shines...I never said there were not. You mistake that fact, and assume I want clans to dominate everything.

Reality is, no, I do not want clans to dominate everything. I want "different but equal" as promised. I am outright glad they are trying to balance the game. I stopped playing because it was fukt before. I am pissed off that they are not doing what makes monumentally more sense, and bringing in IS tech that is supposed to be on par with clans.

If you want a generic mech shooter with BT models...the CryEngine 3.8 SDK is free to DL. You get all the mechs, all the weapons, and everything completely free...with no campaign, no meaningful factions, a slightly different UI, and update CryEngine with new optimizations to improve performance.

Essentially, a newer, better, free version of this game, with no grind, exists in the CE3.8 free SDK. If you want Hawken with BT mechs on CryEngine...that game is out there and costs nothing to get everything for free. You even get free updates to the newest tech.

So, that being the case, why should you give PGI any money at all, and why should they get to call this game "A BattleTech Game"? Is the CryEngine SDK also "A BattleTech Game"? It fits all your criteria that this game does...and even offers more game modes and the ability to create your own maps. Is that not, in some sense, even more "A BattleTech Game" than MWO?

The point is, when it matters, no one is going to take a King Crab over Dire Wolf.

Solo pub nascar queue doesn't count as a time that matters.

What's funny is the King Crab isn't even the best IS assault, let alone better than a Dire Wolf.


Also, if you want to see the latest evidence of PGI favoring IS mechs, look no further than the QKD-4G (C), quirked to out missile the Clan mechs at their own game of stream fire LRMs. With the latest PTS4 changes, it will no doubt dominate every facet of this game. Time to refund all those Clan mechs.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 17 November 2015 - 05:31 PM.

[pwnface]

Gyrok, on 17 November 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

Show me a DW that can do more than 54 kph, or one that has TT speed like a KGC...let alone one that can mount FLD AC40 and brawl like a champ with more speed/twist.

Sure...there are builds where the DW shines...I never said there were not. You mistake that fact, and assume I want clans to dominate everything.

How about you show me a good KGC build that actually needs to go over 54kph?

What game are you playing dude? Who the hell brawls in 100 ton assaults right now? There is a reason why the Atlas is completely garbage tier right now. You think being able to run 64kph in a max engine crab is going to let you brawl and win against a DWF? I'm willing to bet a standard dakka dire build that has an effective range of 600+ can kill a brawler AC40 KGC at point blank range.

[Sjorpha]

Gyrok, on 17 November 2015 - 05:22 PM, said:

https://www.reddit.c...ngine_software/

That shows when they were added to the SDK back in 2014.

As someone who has the SDK for work purposes...it is true. If you wanted a more "MW-esque" UI for mechlab, etc. You would need to get into scaleform, or some other UI tool of your choice to write an overlay for it...however...the mechs are already there.

Someone put 3D assets in a map, that doesn't mean it's anywhere near playable mechs

[Lucian Nostra]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 November 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

willing to bet the playerbase from pre Launch is less than a 1/4 of the current population....and that new player retention is pretty atrocious... since they went and catered to exactly the wrong crowd to keep this IP rolling.

I'd like to see it succeed, but hoping for any depth, I gave up on a long time ago. There's nothing wrong with being Unreal Tournament.... had a lot of fun playing that... I just wish they'd stop limping on two opinions and fully embrace one OR the other, as they are pretty mutually exclusive.

It's either a lore heavy, immersive Simlite..... OR it's a casual friendly, slow paced FPS with delusions of ESportdom. Right now, it leans heavily toward the latter....

I have no doubt, when I saw the roll of legendary founders when they finally did the credits vs how many you see in game... 0.0

Edited by Lucian Nostra, 17 November 2015 - 06:54 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I could've sworn the title says "Mechwarrior: Online" in the big and bold lettering, implying it is, in fact, a Mechwarrior title. It only then follows up with "A Battletech Game" in tiny small lettering that I never noticed until someone pointed it out to me; it's so small that it's implying that it's a Battletech game AFTER the fact that it's a Mechwarrior game.

So what's the issue here? That the game still has more in common with the previous titles than the source board game?

[FupDup]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 17 November 2015 - 07:18 PM, said:

I could've sworn the title says "Mechwarrior: Online" in the big and bold lettering, implying it is, in fact, a Mechwarrior title. It only then follows up with "A Battletech Game" in tiny small lettering that I never noticed until someone pointed it out to me; it's so small that it's implying that it's a Battletech game AFTER the fact that it's a Mechwarrior game.

So what's the issue here? That the game still has more in common with the previous titles than the source board game?

If I had to guess, the "A Battletech Game" thing was added for licensing/copyright reasons.

[Pjwned]

CoffiNail, on 17 November 2015 - 03:32 PM, said:

One thing i think most Inner Sphere and Mercs piltos fail to realize is that it is very demoralizing when you see your faction keep getting nerfed with no compensation or a kind word.

Oh you poor baby, let me kiss your boo-boo.

Jesus christ.

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 17 November 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

If I had to guess, the "A Battletech Game" thing was added for licensing/copyright reasons.

And to attract fans of the BT universe.

Otherwise why do it? It costs money and restricts certain options. If PGI really wants to cater to one crowd, they should drop the pretense and just call it "PokeMech: Online" (There is really no reason to keep playing except to collect more 'Mechs)

If PGI wants to try and have their cake and eat it too, they will fail.

[Tombstoner]

Lucian Nostra, on 17 November 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

I have no doubt, when I saw the roll of legendary founders when they finally did the credits vs how many you see in game... 0.0

I requested that my name be removed from the list. I still have my premium time. As Russ once said "Use your premium time when the games meets your expectations."..... still waiting.

[CoffiNail]

Pjwned, on 18 November 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Oh you poor baby, let me kiss your boo-boo.

Jesus christ.

Yep you are a idiot. Thanks for letting us know.

It has nothing to do with boo boos alright. It is the fact that being a member of a loyalist faction, who does not play the other faction Mechs seeing as you are a loyalist. Someone who gives 0 flicks about unseen or inner sphere Mechs of any kind, I have known many people who have quit for the fact they see almost nothing but nerfs.

Would not expect you to understand being an idiot and a lone wolf.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 18 November 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Oh you poor baby, let me kiss your boo-boo.

Really? How do you propose you and CoffiNail do it?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Remove "Battletech Game"

Insert: "Big Robbit Game"

[Gas Guzzler]

CoffiNail, on 18 November 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Yep you are a idiot. Thanks for letting us know.

It has nothing to do with boo boos alright. It is the fact that being a member of a loyalist faction, who does not play the other faction Mechs seeing as you are a loyalist. Someone who gives 0 flicks about unseen or inner sphere Mechs of any kind, I have known many people who have quit for the fact they see almost nothing but nerfs.

Would not expect you to understand being an idiot and a lone wolf.

I mean, you realize that on the live servers, the best Clan mechs are some of the best mechs in the game right? IS has some mechs that excel at certain roles, and could find their place on a comp drop to fulfill their niche roles, but Clan mechs like the TBR/HBR/EBJ/SCR/DWF are bread and butter.

On the PTS4 we might see some semblance of balance, I haven't had enough time to evaluate whether or not we are there or which side we are leaning towards now (if Clan mechs are all of a sudden underpowered, I will be the first to say so), but honestly, you don't really have much to complain about. Clan mechs have been really strong since release. You can't expect to be the best forever, balance was always going to swing back and forth. Ask the Dragon Slayer.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

CoffiNail, on 18 November 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Yep you are a idiot. Thanks for letting us know.

It has nothing to do with boo boos alright. It is the fact that being a member of a loyalist faction, who does not play the other faction Mechs seeing as you are a loyalist. Someone who gives 0 flicks about unseen or inner sphere Mechs of any kind, I have known many people who have quit for the fact they see almost nothing but nerfs.

Would not expect you to understand being an idiot and a lone wolf.

If there wasn't such a huge tech disparity, the Clans wouldn't need nerfs.

They can buff IS tech to compete with Clans on a one to one parity (Thunderwub and Dakkadragon come to mind), they can nerf clan tech down to a one to one parity (the original cERLL nerf), or they can buff up one while nerfing the other to meet in the middle.

And before you throw out the standard "but unequal numbers!" argument, unless the game drastically changes and respawns are introduced it won't work in the current environment and would need a total overhaul and isn't going to happen.

[Almond Brown]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 November 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

and when the blind follow the blind, both will fall into a pit......

It's not a matter of "knowing how to code a game better".

It's a matter of not being blind to the game bleeding players, and the desperate scrambles and changes to MM to compensate for lack of playerbase.

But by all means, keeps up the blind faith.

You got numbers then? Please do share.

As for my faith, like in most things, I put my faith in the guy on the Right and Left of me when I drive my BattleMech. Sometimes they do well and other times, not so much. Whining about it after just never seems to solve anything.

Why do people who obviously dislike the game hang around the Forums ******** on the Developers? Is it some form of new 21st century therapy or something. It is getting to be quite rampant. Especially in the Gaming Communities it seems.

Edited by Almond Brown, 18 November 2015 - 11:05 AM.

[Sandpit]

k05h3lk1n, on 17 November 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

I don't think perfect balance is achievable and I don't demand it and I also think some mechs will *always* have a hard time finding a niche. PGI should do(..and I think they are really trying..) their best to smoothen these (performance)curves out and maybe some of us should give up the thought that each mech can/will be equal.

Your follow-up was kinda interesting, though, because I said something similar in a different thread(2nd part, starting with birds eye view): http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4828529

Not sure if you were replying to that, partly. I guess so. Your idea is just this, tho: Play the same game modes within new loadout boundaries hence shifting the meta to a different set of mechs for this particular scenario. So, in a exemplary nutshell, playing Skirmish but only with Lights. Sounds like fun. Very simplistic, just like you said.

Not that your idea is without merits, I WOULD prefer it to what we have now.

I've never said perfect balance. There's a difference between perfect balance and a bug or issue that has persisted for 4-5 years that is almost universally considered "bad" by the community with dozens (if not hundreds) of viable and easy alternatives to fix it.

I just think that PGI (as usual) is trying to make things far more complicated than need be. Want a good roadmap for CW? Follow any one of the dozens (and hundreds) of player driven leagues that were popular for decades within the Btech community.
There's absolutely no reason to reinvent the wheel just so you can say "I did it my way instead". Some of it is ego, some hubris, some ineptitude, some small team, some budget.

I'll lay it out like this. A LOT of players (Founders especially) have created, built, written, organized, and/or run leagues, Btech games, etc. for decades.
This includes everything from map making to mech modeling. While I understand the hesitancy to include editing abilities with maps game modes and such, it completely baffles my mind on how and why anyone with next to zero experience with the IP would utterly ignore the community. That's the arrogance in my eyes. "We're PGI and we know best"

Meanwhile they continue scraping by with just enough of a community to continue producing when they could very easily instead be planning their retirement with gobs of money AND have had enough income to finance the transverse game without the crowdfunding.

PGI chooses to do things in the most convoluted and complicated way possible. They created a very adversarial and hostile environment with their community. The players helped that along as well but when owners of companies troll paying customers publicly, that's a good indication that those people probably shouldn't be dealing with the public much.

PGI is a decent gaming company. They're just too stubborn and arrogant for their own good. No, I'm not a professional game developer, but I AM a lifelong fan of Btech, been a gamer longer than PGI has been in business, and know what I find enjoyable. I've coded, I've made maps, I've created 3d models for communities, art, you name it. I may not have chosen it as my profession but I'd be willing to bet I have put in enough hours doing those things to have a general idea.

Point being? PGI had a wonderfully talented community willing to go all in with them and help because of a love for the IP. From everything I've seen thus far? Not much has changed in 4 years unfortunately it seems. Their communication has improved drastically from what I've seen but they still seem to have this block against taking suggestions and ideas from the community a lot of times. That doesn't mean they don't listen, they just tend to disregard it seems.

Anyhow, I like the ideas you posted in your thread. There are several ways PGI could very easily (yes I do mean easily) add a lot more depth the the game and CW with a minimal amount of work or recoding. I have nothing against esports, but there are a lot more in the community that don't play for esports than do so they really need to put a little more attention into that area in my opinion.

Competitive doesn't mean esports. It means enjoying a win while playing against a challenging and FUN game. That's always been my .002

[Sjorpha]

Almond Brown, on 18 November 2015 - 10:44 AM, said:

Why do people who obviously dislike the game hang around the Forums ******** on the Developers? Is it some form of new 21st century therapy or something. It is getting to be quite rampant. Especially in the Gaming Communities it seems.

Like an army of obsessive ex-girlfriends.

[Mystere]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 18 November 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

And before you throw out the standard "but unequal numbers!" argument, unless the game drastically changes and respawns are introduced it won't work in the current environment and would need a total overhaul and isn't going to happen.

I've been hearing this for a while now and yet no one has given any definitive proof that it will not work. Care to take a stab at it?

Edited by Mystere, 18 November 2015 - 12:07 PM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Unequal numbers for balancing just isn't going to work out well.

When trying to balance. It is much better (and probably much easier) to balance values that are well defined and consistent. Things like weapon values are often used because a weapon always fires at the same rate, at the same distance, weighs the same, etc... It's values are definitive and absolute, so tweaking them is easier and the repercussions more predictable. You know what the alteration to a weapon will do, it's performance is reproducible from match to match, its change is measurable.

Now, balancing with people is the opposite. Players performance can vary wildly from match to match (especially the newer the player). They might be sober, drunk, and/or distracted. They might have a good computer, they might have a crap machine. Their internet connection might be good one day, and junk the next. A player might drop in a mech optimized for combat fully skilled out one match, and then try a mech not even basic'd and running an experimental build next match. I could go on and on.

These inconsistent variables play havoc with balance. We see that on a daily basis now with the tier matchmaker and before with the ELO. This is because you can try to predict how players should act and group them so that things even out, but that only produces the results you hope for on occasion.

That is why balancing by numbers just won't work well. You are relying on players to behave and perform consistently and reliably to then counteract an advantage of firepower. Players just don't act that way so results would be all over the board.

It would make one match seem obvious that the clans having less players was bad because they were steam rolled, but then another match would make the clans seem still too OP being down a few players, and it would look like more players would need to be stripped. Which one would be right?

None of this even takes into consideration the fact that players might all want to flock to clan tech regardless because it is better. Hasn't the pursuit of meta taught us that people seek out the best and most effective build as a whole? What does that do to balance?

No, balancing by numbers I'd just a bad idea.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 18 November 2015 - 12:36 PM.

[Lugh]

Mystere, on 18 November 2015 - 12:04 PM, said:

I've been hearing this for a while now and yet no one has given any definitive proof that it will not work. Care to take a stab at it?

Top of head. Keep 12 v 12, restore clan strengths. Then use algorithmics to apply respawns to teams as needed. Clan mech balance on a one to one basis.

Each team that has IS mechs gets 1.6 spawns per IS mech of IS origin, Round as needed. That value based on the 5 v 8 Star v 2 Lance configs most often in lore.

The respawns are only available for the IS. And are available for everyone. To prevent Leroy Jenkins abuse of respawns, the team needs to vote yes or no to allow an IS pilot to use the respawns when he attempts to spawn back. A glance at your score screen will tell you whether or not a yes vote should be allowed.

The message would read Lugh wishes to use an IS respawn ALLOW Yes | No .. If you glance at the screen and see 56 damage and a light mech you may vote no right way. Abstaining isn't counted in the tally. If Yes s > no then he's let back in.


This gives 19 spawns total for full IS teams. 18 for those that have 11 IS and so on.

This requires all clan nerfs get undone. Apply the same metric for CW.
Elegant. Interesting to code. Make it so.

Edited by Lugh, 18 November 2015 - 12:40 PM.