106 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".

and the other Mechwarriors were battletech based games too yet some had fully customizeable mechs. being battletech based doesn't means exact mechanics. It means playing in its univese and the a major part of the lore. hearthstone is also Warcraft based and still different.

MWO is supposed to be a game in firts place and as such needs to entertain the gamers and make sense in it's exitsing content,. bad balance and mechs no one ever uses don't make sense in a PVP game. They make only sense in a PvE game as "easy opponents".

[Revis Volek]

brroleg, on 17 February 2016 - 01:25 AM, said:

Yes. Light tank can kill heavy tank of same level, but not from the front, only from the back. And its possible to flank slow heavy tank. And also here comes the main driveshaft of all internets - butthurt. Heavy tank driver feels so unstoppable, that when light tank kills him from the back, he is raging and butthurting. And light tank driver finds its funny and satisfying enough to the point of dont minding to play light tanks.

That sounds like a great balancing mechanic to me...

Much like how in this game a light mech can core a mech 4 times it size by doing butt stuff.

But nowhere in the game does it say it will take him 2 or more tanks to even kill a larger tank correctly. If done right you can kill them just like they can kill you. If clans are overpowered like the 10v12 guys want each clan mech will have longer range, harder hitting weapons, better engines, better tech in general.

You wont have a SECRET way to kill them, you will have to fall on their swords and hope you did enough dmg so the guys behind you can get the glory.

A night of me making other guys/gals better, the kill stealing would be absurd as you would have guys throwing mechs away expecting others to be doing the same while one guy stands in the back and takes all the final kill shots.


Just more reasons why i dont think this mode will ever work like we want it to.

Edited by Revis Volek, 17 February 2016 - 01:31 AM.

[brroleg]

Quote

you will have to fall on their swords and hope you did enough dmg so the guys behind you can get the glory.

Or you can coordinate efforts and not attack one-by-one, but use your numerical advantage.

And 10vs12 is not right. In OP post i said tonnage advantage on IS side. And thats not necessarily numerical advantege. Its can be that Clans has only 1 assault out of 12, and IS has 3 assaults out of 12. 12vs12 can stay there. Just weight class of mechs changes.

Edited by brroleg, 17 February 2016 - 01:40 AM.

[Revis Volek]

brroleg, on 17 February 2016 - 01:39 AM, said:

Or you can coordinate efforts and not attack one-by-one, but use your numerical advantage.

And 10vs12 is not right. In OP post i said tonnage advantage on IS side. And thats not necessarily numerical advantege. Its can be that Clans has only 1 assault out of 12, and IS has 3 assaults out of 12. 12vs12 can stay there. Just weight class of mechs changes.

Only issue is weight isnt really a perfect balancing factor either, Some 100 tonners are better then others so like you said about BV i think would be the best option. But giving one side a disadvantage in a team based 12v12 game is not a good idea IMO. Limiting WHAT and HOW people can play is also bad because people dont like to be told what to do, even if they end up doing what you told them anyway they want to think they got there on there own accord.

In order to conform with being able to customize out mechs, the mech doesnt get a BV as much as the weapons you equipped do. So LPLs are worth say 5, so a mech with 4 has a 20 weapons BV while its chassis is deemed to be a 10 your overall is now a 30.

Not a perfect system either, but it does address some flaws that tonnage alone brings up. But with quirks weapons would be worth more or less depending on the mech they were put on. Which would be hard to account for, if you have a 15% quirk for say lasers and you have all LPL's like the top mech

[brroleg]

Quote

But with quirks weapons would be worth more or less depending on the mech they were put on. Which would be hard to account for, if you have a 15% quirk for say lasers and you have all LPL's like the top mech

Quirks needs to go. They where made to compensate poor IS tech when everything else was equal(tonnage, numbers etc.)
With BV as you said accounting every weapon and system individually there is no need of quirks, as everything will be balanced without them.

[Lily from animove]

brroleg, on 17 February 2016 - 02:00 AM, said:

Quirks needs to go. They where made to compensate poor IS tech when everything else was equal(tonnage, numbers etc.)
With BV as you said accounting every weapon and system individually there is no need of quirks, as everything will be balanced without them.

and how do you then balance bad mechs vs good mechs? As if a Raven or jenner would ever be able to get in ablance with any FS9. YOu cna only achieve this with quirks.

[HerrRed]

I am a new player and I find these discussions fascinating... I must say, I really love this game and not being a battle tech buff, I know the general gist of it.

I find that balance is actually pretty good. I disliked those 20% or 25% quirks to range since they are too over the top but I find the quirk system really goid to drive us to use certain mechs certain ways.

I find that one of the most common reasons for IS mechs to stand their own against clan mechs is simply to do with the fact that most IS mechs people use have endo steel and double heatsinks which marginaly closes the trch gap to the clans since it allows heavier weaponry, armour and speed to be used.

I mean put a team with stock IS mechs vs stock clan mechs and the IS team will loose (considering similar skill levels) now custumize the IS mechs just right and you get what we have now. Clan mechs have range and some other advantages on IS (I mean, the clan lpl is probably one of the best weapons around) especially with the TC buff. IS mechs on the other hand can bring a lot of firepower and armour for that close range (one of my fav mechs atm is the warhammer with 4 mpl and 2 lpl). I like the game this way. It is way better than seeing uneven teams or one team with so many advantages that tge other team has no chance against it. That makes for boring gameplay. Btw, I own both IS and Clan mechs and my fav clan mech atm us my tbr with 2 UAC5 and 5 ML. Jost so people don't call me partisan

[DovisKhan]

627, on 16 February 2016 - 12:51 AM, said:

that doesn't work with the mixed queue we have. And balancing this game solely around CW is not the best idea either.

Actually if they removed QM completely and focused on doing 1 game mode, but completely balanced, we'd get a much better overall product as it's much easier to do 1 thing right.

+ The queue times would be very short, due to all population being in 1 place.


Also factions would be much more meaningful, since they could force you to a difficult choice, pick one and not have any mechs from the other faction.

Edited by DovisKhan, 17 February 2016 - 05:26 AM.

[Mystere]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 10:22 PM, said:

See, now what you just did there is unacceptable.

Never, ever, change people's quote. Even when you think it's cute.

Because it was inconvenient for your argument. Otherwise you would have disputed my assertion and provided a valid argument.

Edited by Mystere, 17 February 2016 - 07:56 AM.

[Chuck Jager]

Wolfways, on 16 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Pgi uses that argument, it's in the title "A BattleTech Game".

"A BattleTech Game" == Marketing to an existing player base as any smart business should do especially if they have to pay a license fee.

Online games and existing lore are like Men and Women. They are both humans and have many similarities. You can even sometimes hide the differences. If you do not understand how they are different, there may be a very uncomfortable outcome that I think the Kinks wrote a song about. (folks see big picture - there are many ways to debate the many various exceptions)

[Wolfways]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 16 February 2016 - 10:50 PM, said:

But there is an individual: each player that sits down and plays is that individual and he is competing against every other individual out there. Without that, this game would break down and fail quickly; it just wouldn't be a viable business model.

That's the difference between us then. You think "me", and I think "us".
If I liked the zerg I'd play the zergling no matter how "inferior" it was to the protoss.
I asked my wife would she still play IS if clan mechs were OP 1 on 1 and she said yes because she likes the mechs. It's the same reason I play clan, I like the mechs.

The problem with MWO is that pgi created it to work with equal numbers from the start. When I played the BF games it was rare to have a match with an equal amount of players on both sides, and people would leave and join during games, but it worked.

[Wolfways]

Revis Volek, on 17 February 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

What is the definition of "A BATTLETECH GAME"? Im pretty sure it doesnt mean what you guys think it means.

A game based on the BT IP and therefore adheres to the background/lore.

[CDLord HHGD]

brroleg, on 15 February 2016 - 08:41 PM, said:

Just make tonnage limit for Clans lower than for IS. Its perfectly fits lore, as Clans war philosophy is to try win battle with as much forces as possible.

For example, in tabletop simulation program MegaMek there is parameter "battle value". And if you take couple of Clan mechs and try to make equivalent "battle value" IS mechs group, you will end up almost with double tonnage on IS side. And its really balanced, cause its really hard to win with 2-3 Clan mechs against 5-6 IS mechs, but its possible if you lucky.

Well, as much as people might crinj at the thought, they could add a "Ghost" tonnage to every clan mech. Make them weight +5 tons heavier than what is displayed.

This is NOT an ideal solution, I have much better ideas, but this gets the point across.

[Revis Volek]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

A game based on the BT IP and therefore adheres to the background/lore.

Where in that does it say it has to adhere to lore and background?

Hate to break it to ya but we missed that boat already, If you are here for lore you are not gonna be a happy camper.


It no different then when Michael Bay said, im making Transformer movies. They arent really like the show, they arent verbatim like other stuff, they dont make the characters look exactly the same(close but not identical) he has taken some liberties but its still "A TRANSFORMER MOVIE" still part of the franchise and still tote the A TRANSFORMER movie title around.

[Wolfways]

Revis Volek, on 17 February 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

Where in that does it say it has to adhere to lore and background?

Hate to break it to ya but we missed that boat already, If you are here for lore you are not gonna be a happy camper.


It no different then when Michael Bay said, im making Transformer movies. They arent really like the show, they arent verbatim like other stuff, they dont make the characters look exactly the same(close but not identical) he has taken some liberties but its still "A TRANSFORMER MOVIE" still part of the franchise and still tote the A TRANSFORMER movie title around.

Yeah, that's why imo pgi did it wrong. Plus someone having previously done it wrong (as people mention the previous MW titles) isn't a reason to continue doing it wrong.

But that's just my opinion and I understand that it is just an opinion, just like other peoples opinions.
If pgi want to continue removing BT from their game that's fine. I'll quit playing when it is imo too different for me to want to play it (almost there now).

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 17 February 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

Plus someone having previously done it wrong (as people mention the previous MW titles) isn't a reason to continue doing it wrong.

I'm so tempted to replace "it" with a few words just to bring home to people how their thought process looks. But, I'm at great risk of seriously offending a whole lot of people given the words I have in mind. As such, I will refrain.

And so, I will just use something else:

A million flies can't be wrong ...

Edited by Mystere, 17 February 2016 - 01:31 PM.

[AlexEss]

I have a simple counter argument for the 10 vs 12 or no mixed tech solution


Do you (clan players) feel it is ok to have 2-4 or more times as long ques as you are matched against the ever shrinking amount of IS players. Because clan vs clan then only thing that changes compared to now is TTK if clans go back to "lore" level. And then it quickly becomes a game of who ever twitches first.

If that is ok with you guys... Knock your self out, but having played games for over 20 years the thing i know people like about as little as being punching bags is sitting in ques waiting for a game to drop. So longer ques would lead to more people dropping the game because they do not like to be forced in to playing "weaker" mechs in order to get drops. Don´t believe me... Just look at the medium ques in this game... It is not short because mediums are so awesome that only a select few feel worthy to pilot them.... It is short because they are seen as the weakest mechs.

[Dingo Battler]

The tabletop game balance isn't good either. BV has many flaws, and the IS side tends to roll the clan side if they have many more units, even with BV2.

Also, for MWO, I just assume that we're mercenaries with access to esoteric mods none of the great houses have, so our IS mechs are quirked to the max, whereas the engineers do not understand clantech, so many have negative mods in the course of repairs.

Balancing with equal numbers is already bad enough, when you compare mechs like ACH with MLX, or FSH with CDA. Unequal numbers will make it exponentially harder.

[Mystere]

AlexEss, on 17 February 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Do you (clan players) feel it is ok to have 2-4 or more times as long ques as you are matched against the ever shrinking amount of IS players. Because clan vs clan then only thing that changes compared to now is TTK if clans go back to "lore" level. And then it quickly becomes a game of who ever twitches first.

A solution to any population disparity between Clans and IS in solo Quick Play is to removed mixed fights and instead force IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, and IS vs. Clan fights based on player availability.

For the group queue, it is assumed people know what they are doing and as such are free to mix at their heart's delight.

[Eider]

For the record some scream lore to keep clan op.. but lore went out the window when it became 12 on 12 rather than 12 vs 10. They should be balanced to keep things even.