364 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Sjorpha, on 25 November 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

In the specific example of Atlas and Spider, they are both kinda niche in the current meta, but Atlas is still way more powerful than the spider overall. The spider is just too weak in terms of firepower and there isn't a strong enough niche for scouting/speed/agility to make up for it. The typical assassination routine that lights do versus assaults relies on having a decent punch and getting the initiative, it's not actually the case that assaults can't fight against lights once they are aware of them. In most cases a spiders measly alpha won't cripple a fresh atlas quick enough to take down a competent pilot before he can get into a defensible position. (back against wall/controlled range bracket/limit area of engagement and so on.)

This

The core of this problem is - that we have just one game mode!

Doesn't matter all those debates about voting and beeing forced into game modes - virtually MWO is since its beginning a 100% pure skirmish game - killing the other 12 is the job.
Where Conquest and Assault may need some thinking - the 100% pure Team Deathmatch bull crap does not

A Spiders concept is deep strike infiltrator its not its task to fight - the Locust is more a kind of fighting machine (the machine guns are an indicator)
Well we don't have specific missions that allow the Spider to be used in its role. Maybe it would be nice in Assault or Conqeust games were you don't have those "blinking" - "WARNING CAP!" stuff - just a 0 : 1 - its yours its now owned by the enemy forcing each team all the time to have their eyes on target

So you playing conquest don't even bother with using scouts and using you superior numbes to kill those 8 buggers in front of you....hey its 300 to 500 but who cares its 2 vs 3 points - and suddenly its 0 vs 5 and time is ticking.

Oh and its not unfair - you were not the better team you deserve the defeat

[Widowmaker1981]

Sjorpha, on 25 November 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

There should be different situations where one is better than the other, they should be good and bad at different things. But they should be roughly equal in terms of total match impact.

So a 30 ton thing should have the same match impact as a 100 ton thing? In a game where there are tonnage limits? so you pay 3.333 x the opportunity cost, but get an equal impact? Please explain why anyone would use assaults, ever?

Imo, heavier should = better. Not different but equal, better. Otherwise, remove all tonnage restrictions, if the intention is that its only preference.

[Dino Might]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 November 2015 - 03:18 AM, said:

So a 30 ton thing should have the same match impact as a 100 ton thing? In a game where there are tonnage limits? so you pay 3.333 x the opportunity cost, but get an equal impact? Please explain why anyone would use assaults, ever?

Imo, heavier should = better. Not different but equal, better. Otherwise, remove all tonnage restrictions, if the intention is that its only preference.

Look at the percentages and tell me why we need to give further incentive for playing heavier mechs...
Currently, heavier is better, period. If you're arguing for the status quo, then tonnage restrictions must remain, but you'll still continue to have balance problems when there is a significant team tonnage imbalance. It's the reason why some large units are dumping bunches of 2 and 3 mans now, so they can get heavier mechs in the fight. It's kind of stupid, if you ask me, but some people just have to have the advantage for some reason.

If you want 12v12 Timber/Dire Wolves, just go play a private match. If you want some variety, then having each class be viable and not dominating any other class is a necessity...unless you like RPS games. Command and Conquer sucked as a multiplayer game because of its RPS style balance. Oh, you spent 10 minutes amassing the wrong unit type. You auto-lose. Oh, you brought less tonnage to the fight, or you brought the wrong mech to the fight, you auto-lose. That becomes not fun very quickly, because pilot input matters little.

Edited by Dino Might, 25 November 2015 - 03:39 AM.

[Pjwned]

Sjorpha, on 25 November 2015 - 02:58 AM, said:

There should be different situations where one is better than the other, they should be good and bad at different things. But they should be roughly equal in terms of total match impact.

So a good example is that a light often have the advantage if it catches a slow assault alone and off guard, but the assault contributes far more in a frontline battle where firepower and armour is key.

Equally powerful does not mean powerful in the same way, or good in the same situation, it just means equally important part of the team.

The reason they should be "equal" in that sense is to make player distribution and balance work out for a 1 player=1 mech PVP environment.

There is also this weird myth going about lights in MWO being stronger than assaults, but the truth is that assaults are way more powerful than lights in this game as soon as you get some skill and coordination going.

In the specific example of Atlas and Spider, they are both kinda niche in the current meta, but Atlas is still way more powerful than the spider overall. The spider is just too weak in terms of firepower and there isn't a strong enough niche for scouting/speed/agility to make up for it. The typical assassination routine that lights do versus assaults relies on having a decent punch and getting the initiative, it's not actually the case that assaults can't fight against lights once they are aware of them. In most cases a spiders measly alpha won't cripple a fresh atlas quick enough to take down a competent pilot before he can get into a defensible position. (back against wall/controlled range bracket/limit area of engagement and so on.)

And if he is so hopelessly out of position that he is helpless against a light, well that's exactly the kind of mistake the game should punish and where lights should be allowed to shine.

Saved me the effort of posting my own argument saying pretty much the same thing.

Widowmaker1981, on 25 November 2015 - 03:18 AM, said:

So a 30 ton thing should have the same match impact as a 100 ton thing? In a game where there are tonnage limits? so you pay 3.333 x the opportunity cost, but get an equal impact? Please explain why anyone would use assaults, ever?

This has actually been discussed plenty of times concerning assault mechs in community warfare, and usually the consensus is to not bring assault mechs unless you're very well coordinated with your team; also more recently this came up when group queue team composition was changed to be ruled by tonnage rather than weight class.

I believe PGI originally wanted to use a 1/1/1/1 system for CW, and honestly even though I hate that solution I'm starting to think it might be better than what we have now.

Quote

Imo, heavier should = better. Not different but equal, better.

Ech.

Quote

Otherwise, remove all tonnage restrictions, if the intention is that its only preference.

Agreed.

[Sjorpha]

Widowmaker1981, on 25 November 2015 - 03:18 AM, said:

So a 30 ton thing should have the same match impact as a 100 ton thing? In a game where there are tonnage limits? so you pay 3.333 x the opportunity cost, but get an equal impact? Please explain why anyone would use assaults, ever?

Imo, heavier should = better. Not different but equal, better. Otherwise, remove all tonnage restrictions, if the intention is that its only preference.

Tonnage limits and resource factors are certainly a way to give lighter mechs a different kind of advantage. I'm including that in the calculation. It's ok that heavier mechs translate to more raw power as long as being light on tonnage is a significant enough resource advantage. So I'm not sure we actually disagree, since I consider the strategic impact of "cheapness" a part of the mechs strength.

For example the blackjack is so good in CW because is makes so much out of 45 tons, that's a perfectly legit way of being a strong mech.

The problem is that this works best in game modes where each player has an equal amount of resource control, like in CW where the tonnage tradeoffs are within each players dropdeck. Or in games like MWLL or Natualr Selection where all players have access to the teams resource base and can agree on how to spend them. It's also a fairly ok for MWO group queue if the group is premade and works together with the distribution of weight.

But it doesn't work so well in game modes where you have to accept a lower personal impact for playing the "cheap" option, like in MWOs solo queue or in LFG scraped together groups.

I think the current advantage that tonnage gives is on a fairly ok level, it DOES confer a significant advantage to be heavier in MWO now.

I'm not arguing to remove this relation between power and tonnage, but I think that if we want to keep it we need to work some more on the relation between a player and the teams resources in solo queue. A public queue dropship system might be worth looking into for example, or something else I don't know. But it is a problem currently that going low tonnage in the same as giving up match impact, and I agree it would be nice to solve without removing the impact of tonnage itself.

But as I said, I feel the current power to tonnage relation is kind of ok already.

The main point is that clueless rants of the "Assaults are useless!" and "lights takes no damage!" variety are just pure scrub talk as the game is now.

Edited by Sjorpha, 25 November 2015 - 04:54 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Gyrok, on 16 November 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

After having spent over $2k on this game, I am legitimately considering cancelling all my outstanding pre-orders at this point and dropping MWO completely...which is sad because I really never thought the day would come a diehard grognard like me would ever give in...but...this may be the last straw...

Not at 2k, but sitll more I ever spent in any other onlinegame. I am within the same boat for the rest, just I did already mentally quit with the PSR implemention and the first 2 waves of "rebalance". B
ecause these two thinsg show where MWO currently goes to, and its not where I want to follow it or can support it to go there. So many of us gave proper examples of how to create better balance without these weird balance breaking constructs.

I feel sad about what comes because MWo was some kind of very hot and passionate love, and the recent changes just let it burn out quickly.

FupDup, on 16 November 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

If you only played Battletech to experience Clan dominance, you played it for all of the wrong reasons.

That's not to say that I like each and every single change, but the fact remains that some kind of changes needed to be done. The sub-par chassis still need improvement as they always have.

What clan dominance? you mean the 4 mech dominance?

We want balance to amke every mech not bein the worlds apart they are now.because then we can paly them all with joy and efficiency, becaue diversity is fun. And all the balance attemps do not create this.
Ontop that PSR, which is just a wincounter instead of a real skillindicator is NOT going to imporve MM.
It seems strange that PGI is to scray to adjust it in tiny steps until it works, yet they bring massively giant core changes which even already on paper show masive flaws. That does not fit together.

This isn't much battletech anymore, its just another mechwarrior title, and as the previous ones has its own kind fo flaws.

And without a proper balance no proper communitywar will ever work. And this CW is currently, next to the Mechnames and visuals the only connection the game still has to the "Battletech".
So I understand why Gyrok doesn't likes the BT stamp on MWO.

Pjwned, on 25 November 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

I believe PGI originally wanted to use a 1/1/1/1 system for CW, and honestly even though I hate that solution I'm starting to think it might be better than what we have now.

DWF, TBR, SCR, ACH.

theres you new dropship setup, maybe some change a TBR for a HBR. but this isn't much more "diversity" than now.

ON IS side it differs because the way you can build IS mechs grants you better chassis 2 chassis balance amongst IS mechs. But some IS chassis are still crap. And Clan interchassis balance, is nearly non existent.

Widowmaker1981, on 25 November 2015 - 03:18 AM, said:

So a 30 ton thing should have the same match impact as a 100 ton thing? In a game where there are tonnage limits? so you pay 3.333 x the opportunity cost, but get an equal impact? Please explain why anyone would use assaults, ever?

Imo, heavier should = better. Not different but equal, better. Otherwise, remove all tonnage restrictions, if the intention is that its only preference.

yes and no.
In the pubclic queue, one pilot, one mech, therefore in these modes, YES they should have the same impact for balance reasons. Otherwise soon everyone in assaults.

In CW, no, because there its the exact opposite, if a light would equal a assault, then surely everyone would use lights.

And so MWO is trapped between those worlds and their opposed balance needs for these 2 modes.
But lets be honest this isn't even the core problem of MWO. FS9 vs MLX vs IFR vs ACH vs LCT Thats the issue. Already in those rather similar tonnage ranges you have MASSIVE balance gaps.

Jaeger Gonzo, on 23 November 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

Game just needs Stock Mode. MWO feels just instantly BT if played in Stock.

Its not that PGI is not filling our "own" personal vision, but the BT vision that we share and used to love for long, long years, Almond.

For IS vs IS, or clan vs clan, maybe. But stock IS vs stock Clan would be broken as well.

Edited by Lily from animove, 25 November 2015 - 05:52 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Lily from animove, on 25 November 2015 - 05:22 AM, said:

For IS vs IS, or clan vs clan, maybe. But stock IS vs stock Clan would be broken as well.

Not with a proper implementation of "Zell" and "Bidding" and of course its only possible in a lobby.

NEED STOCK BUTTON FOR LOBBY NEED IT YESTERDAY

[Lily from animove]

Karl Streiger, on 25 November 2015 - 05:59 AM, said:

Not with a proper implementation of "Zell" and "Bidding" and of course its only possible in a lobby.

But you know this dream is so wet it flooded itself away already.

Edited by Lily from animove, 25 November 2015 - 06:28 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Lily from animove, on 25 November 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

But you know this dream is so wet it flooded itself away already.

PGI will not fullflill your dreams - its up to you (using the lobby)

so to be bold:

if PGI will create a kind of Coop Mode it will not even be near the "BattleTech" game we do expect
It will neither have story nor multiple mission goals.

I have finished my work on a "test mission" that should simulate combat between 3rd Defenders of Andurien vs elements of the warrior house Hiritsu and the BigMac - on Betelgeuse.

using the information i will get soon, hopefully - i will create more missions. Non of them linear, each will have dynamical conditions that will made one ore even two GMs necessary that spectate the mission.

only problems are - no stock mechs, quirks that doesn't make any sense, and the very very limited options of the lobby and the game mode stubs.

if somebody has 24 buddys and want to test it - i will gladly provide the information as soon as i have translated them (only for GMs)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 November 2015 - 07:27 AM.

[Pjwned]

Lily from animove, on 25 November 2015 - 05:22 AM, said:

DWF, TBR, SCR, ACH.

theres you new dropship setup, maybe some change a TBR for a HBR. but this isn't much more "diversity" than now.

ON IS side it differs because the way you can build IS mechs grants you better chassis 2 chassis balance amongst IS mechs. But some IS chassis are still crap. And Clan interchassis balance, is nearly non existent.

I realize 1/1/1/1 has its problems, which is why I said I hate the solution, but it still might be better.

I don't know, it's probably just the lazy way out and some real balancing efforts (including better weapon balance) instead of the half-assed efforts that are now on the PTS would alleviate the problems without having to resort to 1/1/1/1 which would present its own problems, but I don't expect a damn thing more than minimum viable product so I doubt we'll see that happen.

Edited by Pjwned, 25 November 2015 - 06:47 AM.

[Lily from animove]

Karl Streiger, on 25 November 2015 - 06:35 AM, said:

PGI will not fullflill your dreams - its up to you (using the lobby)

so to be bold:

if PGI will create a kind of Coop Mode it will not even be near the "BattleTech" game we do expect
It will neither have story nor multiple mission goals.

I have finished my work on a "test mission" that should simulate combat between 3rd Defenders of Andurien vs elements of the warrior house Hiritsu and the BigMac - on Betelgeuse.

using the information i will get soon, hopefully - i will create more missions. Non of them linear, each will have dynamical conditions that will made one ore even two GMs necessary that spectate the mission.

only problems are - no stock mechs, quirks that doesn't make any sense, and the very very limited options of the lobby and the game mode stubs.

if somebody has 24 buddys and want to test it - i will gladly provide the information as soon as i have translated them (only for GMs)

not even "stock" works due to how quirks now affect stockmechs. So currently "true" stockmode isn't even possible unless you would only have unquirked mechs.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 25 November 2015 - 06:46 AM, said:

I realize 1/1/1/1 has its problems, which is why I said I hate the solution, but it still might be better.

I don't know, it's probably just the lazy way out and some real balancing efforts (including better weapon balance) instead of the half-assed efforts that are now on the PTS would alleviate the problems without having to resort to 1/1/1/1 which would present its own problems, but I don't expect a damn thing more than minimum viable product so I doubt we'll see that happen.

As I have been saying in other threads, balancing should be an entire system instead of this single-minded approach via weapons and equipment. This system should include the following:

• enemies (IS vs. Clan, IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan)
  
• formations
  
• game modes
  
• drop weight
  
• respawn size (as reinforcements)
  
• victory conditions
  
• Mech construction rules
  
• weapon attributes and mechanics
  
• equipment attributes and mechanics
  
• reward system
  
• etc. etc. etc.

Also, more emphasis should be placed on Community Warfare and not the public queues. The former should be improved significantly and made the de facto entry point, while the latter should be significantly de-emphasized and be relegated as the non-PVE training ground.

Then have Solaris for eSports, and restrict all of that there. And in Hades' name, keep eSports the hell out of Community Warfare.

[Sandpit]

Blackfang, on 25 November 2015 - 12:37 AM, said:

Actually a good spider 5d pilot would probably bring down an atlas in 1vs1 combat, atlas turn rate isn't good enough to track them at full speed and the spider would eliminate the rear armour. But I get your point

^
I'll happily take my Spider 1v1 against an Atlas. The Atlas isn't going to have much fun, I can promise you that.

[Karl Streiger]

Lily from animove, on 25 November 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

not even "stock" works due to how quirks now affect stockmechs. So currently "true" stockmode isn't even possible unless you would only have unquirked mechs.

True but at last its the task of the game master to create fair or even unfair teams based on the mission - its not a free choice

[pwnface]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2015 - 09:11 AM, said:

^
I'll happily take my Spider 1v1 against an Atlas. The Atlas isn't going to have much fun, I can promise you that.

This largely depends on the builds for the Spider and Atlas also.

A spider running 3xMPL is going to have a really ****** time dealing with a 400xl Boar's head at close range. A spider running long range weaponry and ECM can simply kite and nibble at an Atlas until it dies though.

[Almond Brown]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 24 November 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

What make you believe that all meks should be equal?

stuff

Bring me one mek that is utter ****, except SHD-2D2 of course, as its a lol mek in TT as well.

I never said they had to be. What I said is that when used in a Competitive environment, the Cream will always rise. A full blown Stock Only mode in MWO open to ALL would devolve so quickly in to the BEST 2 in each weight class it would not be even funny. If you think otherwise, I do not know what to tell you. SMM was a FUN outing doing something different. You put K/D and W/L on the line for real... another story that.

You brought your own crap Mech to that fight good sir and proved my point for me btw. Thanks.

[Sandpit]

pwnface, on 25 November 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

This largely depends on the builds for the Spider and Atlas also.

A spider running 3xMPL is going to have a really ****** time dealing with a 400xl Boar's head at close range. A spider running long range weaponry and ECM can simply kite and nibble at an Atlas until it dies though.

Pfft, I'll face hug and chew the BH up in that spider build. Especially with XL engines since then all I have to do is tear through a side torso.

[pwnface]

yeah... you are going to facehug an assault in a light and have a bad day.

[Almond Brown]

Karl Streiger, on 25 November 2015 - 05:59 AM, said:

Not with a proper implementation of "Zell" and "Bidding" and of course its only possible in a lobby.

NEED STOCK BUTTON FOR LOBBY NEED IT YESTERDAY

And after the first 10 Clan < Bids went horribly wrong, or horribly right, on the field, then what? Everyone goes back to Stock Clan vs Stock I.S. straight up numbers? Or your Stock button becomes the Ultra Niche of an already Niche game and the wailing of "long wait times" for Stock Matches makes a huge come back, similar to what we hear about CW now? LOL! Brilliant...

[Sandpit]

pwnface, on 25 November 2015 - 10:16 AM, said:

yeah... you are going to facehug an assault in a light and have a bad day.

Really I'm not. *looks over stats* in fact I'm fairly certain I've been doing it for 4 years (although I like my heavies and assaults so I don't commonly run lights anymore) If you have problems performing strategies like face hugging I'd suggest practice. Especially if you want to be a light pilot. That's one of those tactics that should be second nature to light pilots.

If you'd ever like to test the theory I'll happily jump into a private match and we'll do like a best of 10 Assault vs. Light