51 replies to this topic

[Kyrs]

With the new heat penalty "clan xl side torso destruction -40% heat dissipation). We are getting much closer to balance and I must congratulate the INCREMENTAL fine tuning balance approach. (But it feel painfully slow)

With the clan XL Nerfing pushed pretty much to it limits. The next phase should be center in the Std engine and it IS XL.

The community seem very divided on the IS XL issues. We want CLAN and IS to retain each factions flavor, but many "feels" like there IS XL should survive. There aren't many ways to make the IS XL survive the lost of a torso and still follow the 3 engine crit rules. We a left with only one Option ; Delayed destruction similar to the ammo explosion. This time delay can increase in increment until MWO GOD is happy, and 4 or more engine crits would be an instant destruction.

This option could be inserted in the new mech skill tree. The mech is still destroyed and still follow Mechwarrior rule. We already have the nice looking special effect from the ammo explosion.

We are left with the STD engine that doesn't seem to give enough survival, mainly due to pin point nature of MWO. Zombie mech don't have much value in MWO. A bonus structure do to the size of the engine is required.

This bonus could also be part of the skill tree. exemple : bonus CT structure = engine size divide by 20.

With these changes the quicks could have a minor reductions IF it is required.

VOILA!

Edited by Kyrs, 17 January 2017 - 09:35 AM.

[Clit Beastwood]

At the end of the day, no amount of balancing will make bad players good, and that seems to be where a lot of the whining starts. The grass is always greener! Actually heard in comms last night, from the same person, over the course of 2 hours of drops.

"@#$! clan mechs are so %^#$%^$% OP, they only put them in to sell mech packs"
an hour later, same player
"@$%@ing IS mechs are op, all their weapons do damage so @#$@#$ fast!"

Everyone needs to stop looking for scapegoats, stop looking for reasons why they're not improving, and take ownership of the situation. Use the testing grounds, go play some actual drops, and learn the game. Once you master the base mechanics, the game is *really* easy. There is no reason to continue to obfuscate the core gameplay with sesquipedalian mechanics that only serve as a "buffer" between low and high skill tiers. A big part of it is the continued subdivision of the playerbase - squishing FW to clan vs is instead of all the separate factions was a good start. There just needs to be a bigger pool of players to draw from now.

No changes are needed to any of the engines, IS or Clan, people just need to grasp the mechanics of the game, turn down mouse sensitivity, and actually hit the same place more than once.

Edited by Fierostetz, 17 January 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Fierostetz, on 17 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

At the end of the day, no amount of balancing will make bad players good, and that seems to be where a lot of the whining starts. The grass is always greener! Actually heard in comms last night, from the same person, over the course of 2 hours of drops.

"@#$! clan mechs are so %^#$%^$% OP, they only put them in to sell mech packs"
an hour later, same player
"@$%@ing IS mechs are op, all their weapons do damage so @#$@#$ fast!"

Everyone needs to stop looking for scapegoats, stop looking for reasons why they're not improving, and take ownership of the situation. Use the testing grounds, go play some actual drops, and learn the game. Once you master the base mechanics, the game is *really* easy. There is no reason to continue to obfuscate the core gameplay with sesquipedalian mechanics that only serve as a "buffer" between low and high skill tiers. A big part of it is the continued subdivision of the playerbase - squishing FW to clan vs is instead of all the separate factions was a good start. There just needs to be a bigger pool of players to draw from now.

No changes are needed to any of the engines, IS or Clan, people just need to grasp the mechanics of the game, turn down mouse sensitivity, and actually hit the same place more than once.

That really has nothing to do with Faction vs. Faction balance...

I mean, unless you like using g Quirks to balance the factions. The IS XL engine is only "comparable" to the Clan XL when you give IS Mechs ST health quirks, and the is weapons arw not good enough to be compared to clan weapons without the IS Mechs being Quirked.

Anyone who says "just git gud" supports the use of Quirks as a primary Faction vs. Faction balancing mechanism.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 17 January 2017 - 10:01 AM.

[MechaBattler]

I think the delayed destruction for IS XLs would make up the difference. In focused fire a Clan mech might last longer if he can twist around enough. If IS XL took up a few seconds more of focused fire, barring CT or second ST destruction, it would be at least close to comparable to a Clan XL.

Edited by MechaBattler, 17 January 2017 - 10:06 AM.

[Mcgral18]

There are no engine Death crits in MWO, so throw all that out
MWO uses "sidesToDie" as the metric, it's as easy as changing that from a 1 to a 2
Maybe


STD wise, do NOT adjust it by engine size
Remember, there's already a BESM in place, and there's the fact you cannot take large STD engines without gimping your firepower

Blanket or relative buffs to the chassis, but static between STD sizes.

[Clit Beastwood]

Prosperity Park, on 17 January 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

That really has nothing to do with Faction vs. Faction balance...

I mean, unless you like using g Quirks to balance the factions. The IS XL engine is only "comparable" to the Clan XL when you give IS Mechs ST health quirks, and the is weapons arw not good enough to be compared to clan weapons without the IS Mechs being Quirked.

Anyone who says "just git gud" supports the use of Quirks as a primary Faction vs. Faction balancing mechanism.

I'm not saying "just git gud", simply that continually rebalancing isn't doing the game any good. At some point they need to put a pin in it and stop making changes to foundational mechanics. I support the idea of implementing changes on a weekend, for example - throw things at the wall and see what sticks - but that's not what happens. What happens is someone on the development or balance end of something says "we're making this change that will revolutionize everything", then implements it and thats what we get. I like how Blizzard does things with Overwatch - they change little things in the game, say they're doing so, and gather stats. Heck, it could even be used to make things *more* fun, but it doesn't wind up that way. It's... a lack of objective project management.

MechaBattler, on 17 January 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

I think the delayed destruction for IS XLs would make up the difference. In focused fire a Clan mech might last longer if he can twist around enough. If IS XL took up a few seconds more of focused fire, barring CT or second ST destruction, it would be at least close to comparable to a Clan XL.

They're not supposed to be the same - the IS XL is *supposed* to be high risk high reward. If you get mowed super quick running an IS XL, stop peeking.

Edited by Fierostetz, 17 January 2017 - 11:22 AM.

[Kyrs]

Mcgral18, on 17 January 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

There are no engine Death crits in MWO, so throw all that out
MWO uses "sidesToDie" as the metric, it's as easy as changing that from a 1 to a 2
Maybe

STD wise, do NOT adjust it by engine size
Remember, there's already a BESM in place, and there's the fact you cannot take large STD engines without gimping your firepower

Blanket or relative buffs to the chassis, but static between STD sizes.

There always Naysayers. But regardless to the fact that there isn't actual crit to the engine, the system still works with the lost of torso. (Since clans and IS have diff slots amounts ). If a few second of cascade effect doesn't appeal to you..
well ok... your a free man to think what you want .

For the STD engine buff comments well.... it can stack with existing buff, the ratio to engine benefit more the zombie mech, but that the point of the buff. I'm sorry that your urbanmech won't benefit much from that. The ratio can between 1:20 to 1:40.

[Clit Beastwood]

The new player experience for this game is pretty rough - better than it was, but more and more complex mechanics is only going to hurt retention. I want the game to succeed since it's the only thing other than Overwatch that has managed to hold my attention - for MWO to succeed it needs a steady influx of new players to prove it remains business-viable. Hopefully the Harebrained game will allow those in search of a more true-to-tt game a place to be happy, and resolve some of weird dichotomy of MWO, where we sit on the fence between FPS and simulator. It'd be more fun as a simulator, but it's going to make more money as an FPS.

Edited by Fierostetz, 17 January 2017 - 11:32 AM.

[Jackal Noble]

Fierostetz, on 17 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

sesquipedalian

word of the day

[Mystere]

Fierostetz, on 17 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

Actually heard in comms last night, from the same person, over the course of 2 hours of drops.

"@#$! clan mechs are so %^#$%^$% OP, they only put them in to sell mech packs"
an hour later, same player
"@$%@ing IS mechs are op, all their weapons do damage so @#$@#$ fast!"

Unbelievable! ******* unbelievable! <smh>

[Sjorpha]

If the destruction delay is long enough to equal the clan XL st loss survival then sure ok let's do it.

Make it 20 minutes.

Edited by Sjorpha, 17 January 2017 - 11:47 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Kyrs, on 17 January 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

For the STD engine buff comments well.... it can stack with existing buff, the ratio to engine benefit more the zombie mech, but that the point of the buff. I'm sorry that your urbanmech won't benefit much from that. The ratio can between 1:20 to 1:40.

It's a bad idea for the reasons I've already listed

Give me a reason why it shouldn't be a flat STD buff, and not scaling in engine size?

It's a STD VS XL decision, no need to add more variables there.

[Ryokens leap]

Maybe Clan and IS should never have met in group que or quick play, only special events and faction play where Clans only get 3 in their dropdeck.

[Deathlike]

Fierostetz, on 17 January 2017 - 11:01 AM, said:

I'm not saying "just git gud", simply that continually rebalancing isn't doing the game any good. At some point they need to put a pin in it and stop making changes to foundational mechanics. I support the idea of implementing changes on a weekend, for example - throw things at the wall and see what sticks - but that's not what happens. What happens is someone on the development or balance end of something says "we're making this change that will revolutionize everything", then implements it and thats what we get. I like how Blizzard does things with Overwatch - they change little things in the game, say they're doing so, and gather stats. Heck, it could even be used to make things *more* fun, but it doesn't wind up that way. It's... a lack of objective project management.

Whenever I have to speak about PGI and project management... it's about how much they don't really do or don't do well with at all. Very little insight, forethought, logic, counter-arguments... things that would test the thinking process is non-existent. It's just haphazard... if not seemingly random.

The lack of follow-through in execution is one problem... but failure to understand the problem is another.

You'll never have Blizzard-level management... you'll almost always get "minimally viable".

[Andi Nagasia]

as ive made a topic on it, i think a half Life after death for IS XLs would be fair,
300XL gives players 30seconds of before death on ST destruction,

[Clit Beastwood]

Deathlike, on 17 January 2017 - 12:47 PM, said:

Whenever I have to speak about PGI and project management... it's about how much they don't really do or don't do well with at all. Very little insight, forethought, logic, counter-arguments... things that would test the thinking process is non-existent. It's just haphazard... if not seemingly random.

The lack of follow-through in execution is one problem... but failure to understand the problem is another.

You'll never have Blizzard-level management... you'll almost always get "minimally viable".

Well I wasn't trying to dig at PGI, simply indicating that the project management of MWO comes with some substantial baggage, i.e. old statements made, etc. If one makes a statement that XX is the way forward and the right thing to do, and they're managing the project, they will likely (subconsciously or not) try to guide the project to support that statement - it's just the way people work. It's fine for a creative director to have all that stuff in their head, (but don't go saying them out loud until you're sure!!) but the PM really needs to be completely objective. Sure, they have a database to pull from (lets just say Sarna) - they should be given a directive to use the preexisting rules for TT, etc. as "inspiration", but not as a direct path forward. By the same token, those old TT rules need to be at least acknowledged. You can't really guide a skill-based FPS/Sim based on randomized TT rules, but at the same time theres a bit of "nerd tax" on the original IP. That's why it's always been so important to observe the differences between Battletech and Mechwarrior. With Mechwarrior, it has always been understood that it essentially means: "Mechwarrior - inspired by Battletech". Unfortunately, early branding for MWO was "Mechwarrior Online - A Battletech Game". That simple branding error has twisted SO many panties over the last several years and caused such a rift in the playerbase. The eventual issue you run into is a split playerbase - half, swooning over the "realistic graphics" of this implementation of their favorite RPG - and the other half that wants a robot based FPS. The die-hard TT enthusiasts want randomized hit detection, cone of fire, etc. while the FPS guys want their weapons to hit where they aim, since they spend the time developing and improving that aim. How to make both halves happy? It's likely too late - early on it would've taken a split into "simulator" mode and "arcade/fps/competitive" mode.

[Kyrs]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 January 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

as ive made a topic on it, i think a half Life after death for IS XLs would be fair,
300XL gives players 30 seconds of before death on ST destruction,

At this point don't think that a drastic 30sec is need as it would completely scrap current incremental balance that are being taken.

Not sure if your trolling me..

The ability to do one or two alpha before exploding should be more that enough. (well I hope)

[Lupis Volk]

Andi Nagasia, on 17 January 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

as ive made a topic on it, i think a half Life after death for IS XLs would be fair,
300XL gives players 30seconds of before death on ST destruction,

How about NO!

IS XL HAS got to no longer be a death sentence if there is to be any FAIR balance between IS or Clans.

[Mystere]

Kyrs, on 17 January 2017 - 02:03 PM, said:

At this point don't think that a drastic 30sec is need as it would completely scrap current incremental balance that are being taken.

Not sure if your trolling me..

The ability to do one or two alpha before exploding should be more that enough. (well I hope)

Heck, we can even have a graphical representation. The Mech's heat bar would rise beyond 100% with a screeching alarm before you go "Boom!".

Edited by Mystere, 17 January 2017 - 02:07 PM.

[HeresWhy]

A 40% reduction in cooling and 50% reduction in armament versus a 100% reduction in armament. Nope not getting any closer to balanced.