363 replies to this topic

[dario03]

New Tech?
FINALLY!

Really glad this is finally happening. Though I wish this could have been announced at MechCon.... I've been in bittervet mode for like 6 weeks because something like this wasn't announced then. Heck I would have bought some of that half-off premium time if I had known about this.
But oh well, I'm just happy that it is happening. I just hope by March for the details they mean all the details of lots of new stuff and on the 1st

[Ovion]

Kael Posavatz, on 14 January 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

At a certain point you have to make compromises in lore in order to make a functional game. in lore weapons are rated on amount of damage at a given range over ten seconds. all of the AC-20s will do 20 damage @ 270m in ten seconds whether they fire a single round or a burst (and most are bursts, even in the Inner Sphere). Effectively, every weapon has a 'cooldown' of ten seconds.

but, just to throw some numbers around. In TT--and PGI did an okay job of porting numbers over initially--a component with a standard engine inside of it has a 13.88-19.43% chance of being hit (depending on facing), compared to a 44.24-47.19% chance for a component with an XL engine. So you are about 2.75x more likely to hit an engine component in a mech with an XL engine compared to an engine component in a mech with a standard engine.

One way of looking at this is that standard-engine mechs have a degree of robustness that XL-engine mechs lack. So...structure and/or armor buff tied to a standard engine, that offsets mobility of the XL.


Another way of looking at this from a game design perspective is that nerfs have a generally negative emotional effect on your playerbase (harming their enjoyment of the game and making them less likely to open their wallets). Buffs generally have a positive emotional effect, increasing enjoyment (and revenue). Yes, some care needs to be taken to keep powercreep from unbalancing the game, but PGI has a tendency to front-load powercreep and resolve with repeated nerfs. Given that tendency and the fact that clan tech was unbalancing (on the high end), nerfs were inevitable, but what it has actually managed to accomplish (besides improving game balance, granted) has been to...repeatedly irritate a significant portion of their player/revenue base.

Yes, but changing the number of shells fired, fire rates, heat generation, heat dissipation, are all 'floating' stats - they are not hard concepts, or basis for the universe being used.

How XL engines work, is.
It's explicitly described in the fiction - it is not a floating abstract, it is not an adjustable thing.

This is a battletech game, if we start ignoring the lore then it's just a generic game with battletech skins.

Yes, nerfs may have a negative effect, but they are needed for balance, you can't JUST keep buffing everything to compensate, as that leads to absurdity.

But changing core concepts is FAR worse and will piss of FAR more people.

[brove]

nerf clans harder! imo the XL penalty is not too bad, but I don't like the idea of hard-mounted nerfed engines. there are very few clan mechs, where std engine builds would really make sense, but I think all pilots should be allowed to decide for themselves if they prefer running nerfed XL or rusty old std.

[Dee Eight]

SmithMPBT, on 13 January 2017 - 10:53 PM, said:

Reducing clan cooling efficiency is totally equal to instant death from ST on Inner Sphere mechs.

Its only the cooling of the engine mounted heatsinks anyway.

[Ridingwolf1]

Go home PGI, you are drunk.

Seriously though, this was almost like reading a US government press release. A lot of words that give the mental image of a dog chasing its own tail. There is no content, just a whole lot of words that when summed up, mean nothing.

Clans have no 20 ton mech. Let's add another IS light.
We can't fix current mechs, weapons, graphics. Let's add more of all three.
People are growing tired of our price gouging. Let's create a new (old) system of price gouging that looks to be a way of pigeonholing people into buying things they don't want to get things they do want.

This is not very smart. You did a great thing by bringing the Battletech universe alive for us again Russ, but your decision making privileges should be revoked when it comes to game development. You are not good at this.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Ovion, on 14 January 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

How XL engines work, is.
It's explicitly described in the fiction - it is not a floating abstract, it is not an adjustable thing.

This is a battletech game, if we start ignoring the lore then it's just a generic game with battletech skins.

But changing core concepts is FAR worse and will piss of FAR more people.

Tabletop rules =/= Lore

Also, this is a PvP game
Balance >>> Lore

[MechaBattler]

I really really hope those 7 mechs that are going to be requirked for the IS includes all of the mechs they scaled up into oblivion.

[Falconer Cyrus]

Uncle Totty, on 14 January 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

Really? THAT tiny of a change? REALLY?

PGI cleared enough of vegetation to destroy my ppc-cat stealth tactics ;-)
*Sigh*... it was funny
And I don't like night on the swamp map.

Edited by Falconer Cyrus, 14 January 2017 - 12:48 PM.

[Peiper]

Crockdaddy, on 14 January 2017 - 09:42 AM, said:

You expected the taking of Terra to mean something?

It was half sarcasm/half wish. I would like to think that something we do in CW means something. PGI cherry picks lore to use, typically to support a feature they want, and throws out lore if it doesn't fit their ideas. They don't use lore as a basis for building the game, IMO. Like watching a movie 'based on actual events.' You know how those turn out!

I'm advocating for depth the community warfare. If you're going to go against the actual timeline/atlas of events from Battletech, okay. I can live with that. But if you're both going to throw out lore AND invalidate the achievements we've done in the game on behalf of our factions, then why even have factions? What is the point of factions at all?

Currently the ONLY difference between any of the factions in CW is the technology. By 3060, 2 clans will be IS clans, one will have split in half between sides (wolf), one will be annihilated, and the Sea Foxes will be exporting clan tech. Meanwhile, clans will be using whatever tech they have their hands on to defend their gains, including IS mechs captured or manufactured with captured factories. So tell me, Crockdaddy - or should I say, PGI - when clan and IS tech is no longer exclusively the domain of either side, what are you going to do with Faction War? Currently the ONLY difference between Clan and IS is the tech, and actually taking planets and expanding your 'sides' territory is meaningless except, perhaps, to those ultracomp few who manage to get a planet with their tags?

[Jay Leon Hart]

Peiper, on 14 January 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

*snip*

Did you say cross-tech?

[Coldethel]

Ramrod AI, on 13 January 2017 - 07:03 PM, said:

I showed this to a friend and this is what he had to say. I don't necessarily agree with it

"]what i just read was, Due to falling income from pissed off players not spending money we are finally gonna do 1/4 of what we promised 1 year ago in the hopes your dumb enough to give us lots of cash for being lazy, deceptive, greedy pieces of ****. Thank you from PGI...."

PSA:
Remember folks - access to the Forum thread ALLOWS you to act like a spoiled child. Also remember, this doesn't mean you HAVE to act like a spoiled child.
You can always keep your childish opinion to yourself, and help reduce the salt content.
Kthxbye

[Baphomech]

Incoming IS light could be Stinger (nostalgia factor) or Raptor (first IS omni would be good segway into new tech, IMO). New-tech showcase mechs could likely include Nova Cat and Blood Asp for clans; IS is harder call, but Hauptmann and Uziel are solid possibilities. Skimming the 3060 Technical Readout provides a wealth of potential candidates.

[Ovion]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 January 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

Tabletop rules =/= Lore

Also, this is a PvP game
Balance >>> Lore

I've also stated repeatedly, I'm talking LORE not TT rules.

We are still limited by the source material.
Just because the balancing used isn't what YOU want (even if it works within the source material), it IS within the bounds of the source material.

There is a difference between Balance within the universe and Balance at the expense of the universe, especially when the former is entirely possible.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Ovion, on 14 January 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

I've also stated repeatedly, I'm talking LORE not TT rules.

We are still limited by the source material.
Just because the balancing used isn't what YOU want (even if it works within the source material), it IS within the bounds of the source material.

There is a difference between Balance within the universe and Balance at the expense of the universe, especially when the former is entirely possible.

Allow me to rephrase.

Anything from the lore that states a 'mech has to explode because a certain percentage of a component is destroyed, can easily be hand-waived without impacting anything significant with respect to actual storytelling and continuity.

We are only limited by what PGI allows themselves to be limited by, neither you nor I have any real say in what they choose to ignore or follow. I can only hope they always choose game balance over preserving, frankly, unimportant lore aspects.

[Ovion]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 January 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

Allow me to rephrase.

Anything from the lore that states a 'mech has to explode because a certain percentage of a component is destroyed, can easily be hand-waived without impacting anything significant with respect to actual storytelling and continuity.

We are only limited by what PGI allows themselves to be limited by, neither you nor I have any real say in what they choose to ignore or follow. I can only hope they always choose game balance over preserving, frankly, unimportant lore aspects.

The problem is, what things are and do, aren't unimportant lore aspects.

Again - if you want to ignore what things are and do, for the sake of the easy and lazy path to 'balance', then why bother playing a game based explicitly on a lore, and what things are and do?

[Jay Leon Hart]

Ovion, on 14 January 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

The problem is, what things are and do, aren't unimportant lore aspects.

Again - if you want to ignore what things are and do, for the sake of the easy and lazy path to 'balance', then why bother playing a game based explicitly on a lore, and what things are and do?

So, in the lore, it explicitly states that Inner Sphere 'mechs using an XL engine from any manufacturer will cease to function upon the loss of a side torso and all components contained within? I'm genuinely asking.

[MovinTarget]

Ovion, on 14 January 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

The problem is, what things are and do, aren't unimportant lore aspects.

Again - if you want to ignore what things are and do, for the sake of the easy and lazy path to 'balance', then why bother playing a game based explicitly on a lore, and what things are and do?

I get what you are saying, however, lore nor tabletop ever had to deal with certain realtime factors that an fps must. So essentially, PGI must sometimes hand-wave what was hand-waved by source material because it simply doesn't work in a facsimile of the physical universe which, in many ways, MWO is closer to being than TT or source material.

Sometimetimes i almost wish they'd dump lore and TT because an atlas *should* have more physical "slots" than a locust... but it doesn't, does it? It can hold more tonnage, but the same engine and weapon components consume the same amount of space...

That was simplification if not outright handwaving in the source material...

Edited by MovinTarget, 14 January 2017 - 02:26 PM.

[Peiper]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 January 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

Did you say cross-tech?

Two possible responses: I suggested that clan and IS equipment is no longer exclusive to either side by 3060. Also, that some clans are IS factions by 3060, and so there's no reason to segregate the mechs anymore.

The other response: should we be able to put clan parts on IS mechs and vice versa? I would like to say no, however, there are cases in lore where this happens. There are also mechs, like the Pack Hunter, which use parts from both tech lines, however, in TT, this amounts to nothing as those parts (Standard engines and sensors) don't affect the statistics of the Pack Hunter at all. My answer to that is we thousands of mechwarriors aren't special enough to be that one guy with an IS mech who replaced their lost Large Lasers with salvaged ER Large Lasers, unless PGI impliments some sort of performance penalty due to mating metric parts with imperial parts, if you catch my drift.

HOWEVER.... PGI is doing everything they can to make sure clan and IS techs are basically identical in balance and power. If they're going to throw out the FACT that clan tech is far superior to IS tech, then why not go the next step and let people switch out weapons at will like MW4? I have to argue against that, though, as a champion of battle value and the doing away with tonnage as a measure of a mech. But that sort of math seems beyond the understanding of the devs.

I have a recording of the meeting where one guy showed how BV works. Let me transcribe it in it's entirety:

"Dev 1: Well, we're giving the IS medium laser a BV of 5 and a clan ER medium a 7.
Dev 2: Stop it, you're hurting my brain.
Dev 3: Sorry man. Here, eat some pudding."

[MovinTarget]

BV is great among friends that can keep each other in check, it will suck when somewhen decides to sabotage their team for lulz and build a mech with a high BV that can't really function effectively in the game because they stripped all the armor or heat sinks to make room for all teh lazorz....

[Sevronis]

Finally, new tech. More UACs for IS (and Rotary? PLEASE TELL ME ROTARY), more streaks, other ER versions of lasers, maybe, MAYBE, even the ability for IS to field clan tech in FP (I assume in a limited sense if so). For Clan.. uh.. Mad Cat MKII (and sure, other mechs)! I think there were a few new weapons for them as well.

My guess about the departure from single mech releases is because of the new skill tree, since it won't require you to basic out 3 mechs of the same chassis anymore, no need for mech releases to come included with a minimum of 3 variants per mech. This means each pack would have just 1 variant per mech and the rest you would just have to buy with Cbills/MC. Cheaper potential packs maybe?