5 replies to this topic

[chewie]

Its something that's been bothering me for some time about this game and its current play style and clientele. Even to the point that sometimes, I just wanna log off because its the same day in day out.

And even though its gonna get shouted down i expect from the usual suspects, I need to say this.





Since it before it left Closed Beta, this game has suffered with wild swings to try and manage the balance of how the weapons, the mechs, and the ancillary equipment works. think Bowling for mechs with Dragons knocking down Atlai and skipping away unscathed and you'll surely remember..... if you were about back then that is....



I think its about time that instead of just making constant buffs and nerfs to weapons and things like ECM, that PGI should think more about a change to the game overall because that is whats having the biggest impact on their efforts to "balance" out the mechs and their weapons.


Stock Mode and Balance.

New 'mechs are always being released, and then after two weeks, being given a tweak to either improve survive ability down to over sized hit boxes making it easier to kill them, or adding structure/armour quirks to make them more durable, or making them accelerate/decelerate better etc etc.

In and of itself that's fine. Teething problems that get ironed out until everyone (or almost everyone) is happy with how the chassis handles isn't that bad.


Of course, if a chassis was released that wasn't deemed as OP or "useless" straight out the gate but worked just right, that'd be a nice change.



Reason 1 for stock mode.

Now weapons, that's a different thing.

Each 'mech that has been released has been done so with its load-out etc based on a typical table top machine, right down to the last bit of ammo.
The only time a build has differed from its TT version, is where it needs to due to game limitations. EG, rearward firing weapons.

With the current game setup and its mechlab, PGI has shot itself in the proverbial foot as its going to be impossible to have any meaningful balance when the way the players are setting up there mechs is leading to the destruction of that weapon balance.

If a player wants to load up on 4 ER large lasers, fine, it doesn't need to have Ghost heat if he fires all 4 together. The heat spike alone should be enough to make you think twice about firing all 4 too many times.

By reducing the game to a stock version only for the time being, not a total removal of Mechlab, PGI can then get a greater idea of what the weapons should be set to.


Then, when the mechlab is released once more, if players find themselves overheating or not doing enough damage, its down to their choices.
Not the choices of PGI when they created the game because the player cant do what he wants.

Right now, it feels that any time a player is unhappy with a weapons damage/heat/range balance because of how many he's using on his build, PGI give a change to try and placate them.


Reason 2 for stock mode

After weapons, comes Variants.

Right now, there is no point to the majority of the mechs that have been released.

Take the Battlemaster. 7 Variants. 7.
5 of which, with the exception of cbill boosts etc, are superfluous.

It either has 4 ER Large in the side torsos, or it gets run as a LRM build.
The others are therefore pointless.
Why? Because with the exception of the LRM build, they can all mount at least 4 energy weapons in the side torso's.
And thats what people do with them. They have no need to own more than 2 of this mech because of how it gets used right now.

The same goes for damn near every mech in the IS garage (and the majority of the clammers too). People find a build that has the lowest TTK while being as survivable as they can get it to be... and that's it.

Removing the full modification side of the mechlab, would mean that those other mechs would start being seen more and more because they could fill an actual purpose.

And not just the siblings of the "meta" builds, but all the other mechs that don't get regular use either.

"boo hiss" "if your not happy just quit" "learn2play" and other such choice insults aside (or whatever you can come up with if you've actually gotten this far), it makes sense to have these mechs as viable mechs in the game.
Not just as a stepping stone to you getting the experience you need for Elite and Master grade mechs to make your favourite build that little bit better.



Not so long ago there was an ill fated attempt at a game, by the name of MPBT3025.

In this game you had no mechlab like you do here.
You had a mechbay so you could choose what mech you wished to use from whatever you owned in your hangar.
And people loved it. Seriously loved it. The hate for EA when they closed it down to focus more on a driving game, well, there was lots of it.

It gave players the variation they needed to keep it interesting. You weren't happy with a mechs load out, you sold it and used a different one that was available. And, i might add, you had rear view camera and rear firing weapons.
But that's a whole different shell it was based on.

So, if you had no mod capability, you had a valid financial reason to sell new variants and new mechs. (oh look, another valid reason to make the game stock only, not just to make money to keep it going but to keep it interesting)


OK, thats those two points placed down for Stock mode and Balance, and my thoughts on how this game can get some life back into it, instead of the same dreary "oh look, a dire wolf. that'll be a 6UAC5 build then" or "hey im being sniped, oh that will be that ECM raven with 2 ER Large lasers then" game after game after game.

Just because the games that have gone before this had a fully working mechlab, doesn't mean this one should, right at this moment.

Those games were all finalized versions, all had a storyline that it made sense to have a fully functional mech lab in, and were all games that only got weapons upgrades etc when major content was released (bye bye bombast laser from MW4).

[Hawk_eye]

I´m all for restricting the mechlab (perhaps not completely remove it, since, well, we are used to mod our mechs since MW2)
But make it _hurt_ you, when you stray too far away from stock.

So my Wolverine has an AC/5 in his right arm and his targeting computer is build to take that into account. So I remove that AC/5 and put in an AC/10. But this gun has a vastly different ballistic profile, weights more and generates more heat. Neither my targeting and tracking computer, nor the myomer fibers in that arm nor the heat-pipes are meant to deal with any of that.
So the AC/10 has (a somewhat) reduced range (targeting computer), generates more heat (heat-pipes) and the arm moves slower (myomer)

The further you stray from stock, the more severe the penalties get (putting 3 LLs where originally 2 SL where? Whoa, you get a _ton_ of extra heat, your arm/torso moves like an oil-tanker and you can´t hit crap at long range)

Also agree on the variants thing.
_Having_ those variants is kinda fine for me, but the whole "have to basic 3 variants to elite one" is complete BS, especially for Clans, who can build _any_ variant with just one mech due to omni-pods - which, of course, _also_ is the result of the complete freedom we have in the mech-lab.

[Generic Internetter]

The ability to purchase and customize your own mech is one of the major selling points of the MechWarrior franchise.
If you did that, might as well call it "Team Fortress MechWarrior" or something. "No" to MechLab shutdown.

I do agree that some of the variants are too similar, but just a minor tweak would solve that.
I'm surprised to see that MWO doesn't have omni hardpoints (IE: Any kind of weapon can go there).
Just changing a few of the hardpoints to omni would breathe life into the variants, or even just accentuating some of the quirks.

[Bud Crue]

Antecursor Venatus, on 28 January 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

I´m all for restricting the mechlab (perhaps not completely remove it, since, well, we are used to mod our mechs since MW2)
But make it _hurt_ you, when you stray too far away from stock.

So my Wolverine has an AC/5 in his right arm and his targeting computer is build to take that into account. So I remove that AC/5 and put in an AC/10. But this gun has a vastly different ballistic profile, weights more and generates more heat. Neither my targeting and tracking computer, nor the myomer fibers in that arm nor the heat-pipes are meant to deal with any of that.
So the AC/10 has (a somewhat) reduced range (targeting computer), generates more heat (heat-pipes) and the arm moves slower (myomer)

The further you stray from stock, the more severe the penalties get (putting 3 LLs where originally 2 SL where? Whoa, you get a _ton_ of extra heat, your arm/torso moves like an oil-tanker and you can´t hit crap at long range)

I like a carrot better than a stick. You could do the same sort of thing with hard point specific quirks. E.g. Oh you want that 50% velocity buff to your PPCs in that warhammer? Then those PPCs have to go in the arms. That sort of thing.

Also, even in the existing system there is no reason to make a mech unplayable or highly nerffed just because you want (in your example) an AC10 instead of an AC5. The game already has built in balance for messing about like this: you want more firepower, then you need to make up for that tonnage somewhere else (engine or armor).

Hard point specific buffs wouldn't change design or game play much other than to encourage certain mechs to have certain builds (see PPCs in the arms of Warhammer example above), but still allow the player the choice of changing out the build to his/her taste without harm. It would sort of be a step "back" in some peoples' eyes however, since a lot of folks don't like weapon specific quirks in the first place and this would bring them back.

As to the OP: I like the idea of a stock mode, as long as it is just that. A mode the player can select or not. Customization is 60% or more of the fun of this game, and taking that away across the board (or making it highly impractical) would force a lot of folks away.

Edit: Forgot to mention: I like the game play. I like to play a variety of crazy builds though. I build something fun, keep the mech, buy another and try something new. Repeat. Keeps it fresh. Expensive, and it kills your stats, but certainly fresh. Then again you have been playing this game for a lot longer than I so maybe you have already tried this route.

Edited by Bud Crue, 29 January 2016 - 11:39 AM.

[SilentScreamer]

chewie, on 28 January 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

Its something that's been bothering me for some time about this game and its current play style and clientele. Even to the point that sometimes, I just wanna log off because its the same day in day out.

<trimmed>

With the current game setup and its mechlab, PGI has shot itself in the proverbial foot as its going to be impossible to have any meaningful balance when the way the players are setting up there mechs is leading to the destruction of that weapon balance.

If a player wants to load up on 4 ER large lasers, fine, it doesn't need to have Ghost heat if he fires all 4 together. The heat spike alone should be enough to make you think twice about firing all 4 too many times.

By reducing the game to a stock version only for the time being, not a total removal of Mechlab, PGI can then get a greater idea of what the weapons should be set to.

<trimmed>

Then, when the mechlab is released once more, if players find themselves overheating or not doing enough damage, its down to their choices.
Not the choices of PGI when they created the game because the player cant do what he wants.

Right now, it feels that any time a player is unhappy with a weapons damage/heat/range balance because of how many he's using on his build, PGI give a change to try and placate them.


<trimmed>

Just because the games that have gone before this had a fully working mechlab, doesn't mean this one should, right at this moment.

Those games were all finalized versions, all had a storyline that it made sense to have a fully functional mech lab in, and were all games that only got weapons upgrades etc when major content was released (bye bye bombast laser from MW4).

The mechlab is what many players loved about the mechwarrior franchise. Pulling it away, even temporarilly, would likely have a negative backlash from the playerbase. Just like Clan Wave 1, once it is out there, it is too late to put it "away" in order to fix the balance issues it creates. There are alternative methods to attempt to fix the problems while still leaving the mechlab "in play".

Antecursor Venatus, on 28 January 2016 - 09:52 PM, said:

I´m all for restricting the mechlab (perhaps not completely remove it, since, well, we are used to mod our mechs since MW2)
But make it _hurt_ you, when you stray too far away from stock.

<trimmed>

The further you stray from stock, the more severe the penalties get (putting 3 LLs where originally 2 SL where? Whoa, you get a _ton_ of extra heat, your arm/torso moves like an oil-tanker and you can´t hit crap at long range)

I love the spirit of this idea. However, it will not eliminate the "meta" it will just change the meta builds that are most popular. With the "temporary" rebalance left to us at the end of 2015, who knows, maybe something like this will be combined with Paul's idea on "information warfare" for the next rebalance?

Generic Internetter, on 29 January 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

The ability to purchase and customize your own mech is one of the major selling points of the MechWarrior franchise.

While not part of the "Mechwarrior" franchise, The Crescent Hawk's Inception was a wonderful game. It was definately a Battletech game and Mech's could only be customized into specific variants. So a restricted mechlab or even removal of the mechlab isn't necessarily against tradition. That said, I would oppose this sort of change because it leads simply to a different "meta".

My personal opinion on the best way to go for balance is to: 1) strip the Quirk system out, 2) get the weapons balanced properly, 3) then give attention/quirks to underperforming mechs only. As a side, I think balance Clan tech with I.S. on "ton-for-ton" and "mech-for-mech" is also a lost cause. Handicaps like seperate dropdeck tonnage for I.S. and Clan seem more appropriate than continuing the quirk system adjustments.

Edited by SilentScreamer, 29 January 2016 - 11:45 AM.

[Hawk_eye]

Bud Crue, on 29 January 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:

I like a carrot better than a stick. You could do the same sort of thing with hard point specific quirks. E.g. Oh you want that 50% velocity buff to your PPCs in that warhammer? Then those PPCs have to go in the arms. That sort of thing.


Also, even in the existing system there is no reason to make a mech unplayable or highly nerffed just because you want (in your example) an AC10 instead of an AC5. The game already has built in balance for messing about like this: you want more firepower, then you need to make up for that tonnage somewhere else (engine or armor).


Hard point specific buffs wouldn't change design or game play much other than to encourage certain mechs to have certain builds (see PPCs in the arms of Warhammer example above), but still allow the player the choice of changing out the build to his/her taste without harm. It would sort of be a step "back" in some peoples' eyes however, since a lot of folks don't like weapon specific quirks in the first place and this would bring them back.


As to the OP: I like the idea of a stock mode, as long as it is just that. A mode the player can select or not. Customization is 60% or more of the fun of this game, and taking that away across the board (or making it highly impractical) would force a lot of folks away.


Edit: Forgot to mention: I like the game play. I like to play a variety of crazy builds though. I build something fun, keep the mech, buy another and try something new. Repeat. Keeps it fresh. Expensive, and it kills your stats, but certainly fresh. Then again you have been playing this game for a lot longer than I so maybe you have already tried this route.

Putting an AC/10 in place of an AC/5 wouldn´t make the mech unplayable (I _did_ put "a somewhat" in there ) it would just generate a _little_ extra heat, be a _bit_ reduced in normal AC/10 range and the arm would move a _little_ slower. But the more you deviate from the original, the more severe the drawbacks would become.

Replacing the MLs in a Marauder with MPL? Not a big deal.

Replacing the Marauder´s single AC/5 with 3 of them? Oh boy, better be prepared that your torso is going to twist about as fast as a glacier moves.

Replacing the Griffin´s LRM-10 with 2 LRM-5s? Easy thing, perhaps a _tiny, little_ bit of extra heat.

Replacing the Griffin´s LRM-10 with 2 LRM-15s? Yeah, quit a bit extra heat.

I could live with your idea of quirked hard-points too, but I am not a big fan of weapon´s quirks in general.

If builds are restricted in what can be put where due to drawbacks, I feel we can get rid of them completely and buff the weapons on the whole.

Because, let´s face it, buffing weapons on the whole doesn´t work, because, if a buffed weapon is good when I mount 1 or 2, it is OP if I mount 4 or 6.

SilentScreamer, on 29 January 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

I love the spirit of this idea. However, it will not eliminate the "meta" it will just change the meta builds that are most popular. With the "temporary" rebalance left to us at the end of 2015, who knows, maybe something like this will be combined with Paul's idea on "information warfare" for the next rebalance?

There´ll always be a "meta" no matter what, that´s a given.

"Meta" only turns into a problem, when the gap between Meta and Non-Meta gets too big.

Currently, I feel like that gap is _way_ too large and limiting customizablility could be one way to lessen that gap.