78 replies to this topic

[Kdogg788]

Well thanks for the massive break down and everything and your goals for game balance but I've seen over the past 4 years that these threads are a dime a dozen and for all the backseat analysis everyone wants to do, PGI just goes and does their own thing ultimately. The posters on these threads represent a minority of their actual user base, just a vocal one. GasG is right. The game is the game at the moment and you either adapt or not.

My main question is... Where is the official release or communication discussing this? Or are we all running on a couple Twitter comments and heresay in terms of what will be implemented.

-k

[Gas Guzzler]

Kdogg788, on 20 January 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Well thanks for the massive break down and everything and your goals for game balance but I've seen over the past 4 years that these threads are a dime a dozen and for all the backseat analysis everyone wants to do, PGI just goes and does their own thing ultimately. The posters on these threads represent a minority of their actual user base, just a vocal one. GasG is right. The game is the game at the moment and you either adapt or not.

My main question is... Where is the official release or communication discussing this? Or are we all running on a couple Twitter comments and heresay in terms of what will be implemented.

-k

https://mwomercs.com...february-beyond

View the special announcement at the bottom.

[Reno Blade]

Kdogg788, on 20 January 2017 - 10:03 AM, said:

Well thanks for the massive break down and everything and your goals for game balance but I've seen over the past 4 years that these threads are a dime a dozen and for all the backseat analysis everyone wants to do, PGI just goes and does their own thing ultimately. The posters on these threads represent a minority of their actual user base, just a vocal one. GasG is right. The game is the game at the moment and you either adapt or not.

My main question is... Where is the official release or communication discussing this? Or are we all running on a couple Twitter comments and heresay in terms of what will be implemented.

-k

Where are the changes from? These are only my ideas so far.
and 3060 tech is in the Januar/Feb/behond road map. planned for this May (if i recall correctly).

Ofc everyone needs to adapt, if he want's to play and play good (win), but that's not the point of such a discussion.
This is about how to improve the gameplay, so it feels better to more than just the "best" guys who are still in the game.
If this game is too hard for new players, we won't get more (and keep them).

I'm not suggesting these changes because I get killed every time, but because getting killed very fast in many situations (sometimes stupid mistakes) is a lot less fun than surviving a fight for prolonged time, moving and trading, etc...

Fond memories of Centurion duels (or free brawl) where not every weapon shot was hitting or where you were twisting as much as the target and trading was actually very intense.
I understand that this is 12vs12, but with the proposed changes, I hope to bring back more fun from surviving.

[Clit Beastwood]

At the end of the day - 4 years into the game is too late to be changing base mechanics. Like it or not, the game is what it is. The more they try to adjust, the worse it gets *for the majority of players*. There's a vociferous minority that all tend to echo the same things, but really, they aren't the bulk of the playerbase. Again, I think this harkens back to early-day mistakes like saying "Mechwarrior Online - A Battletech Game" - historically there's been a bit of a divide between Mechwarrior and Battletech. Mechwarrior was always more "inspired by" battletech rather than rigidly adhering to Battletech rules, and it was generally accepted. By saying "A Battletech Game" and continually referring to "A thinking man's shooter", it brought in a lot of players who might not have otherwise jumped in, given that Mechwarrior has always been a loose interpretation of Battletech. It is what it is - the game's frequently broken because of the odd dichotomy between the two halves of the playerbase. PGI gets a lot of flak because they're trying to satisfy both halves - you can't make everyone happy, when you try you just wind up annoying everyone. They needed early on to pick one or the other, or have built the game with a "Strict BT Rules" mode as the exception to the "FPS first" rule. The HBS battletech game will hopefully give the die-hard BT fans a more comfortable "home turf" to play in, and allow Mechwarrior to be what it is: inspired by Battletech.

Apologies if I ramble - I quit caffeine for the new year and inadvertently drank a giant espresso without thinking about it and now I have so much energy I can feel my hair growing lasfkajsdflajsflkajsdklasjfsdf

Edited by Fierostetz, 20 January 2017 - 10:23 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Fierostetz, on 20 January 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

At the end of the day - 4 years into the game is too late to be changing base mechanics. Like it or not, the game is what it is. The more they try to adjust, the worse it gets *for the majority of players*. There's a vociferous minority that all tend to echo the same things, but really, they aren't the bulk of the playerbase. Again, I think this harkens back to early-day mistakes like saying "Mechwarrior Online - A Battletech Game" - historically there's been a bit of a divide between Mechwarrior and Battletech. Mechwarrior was always more "inspired by" battletech rather than rigidly adhering to Battletech rules, and it was generally accepted. By saying "A Battletech Game" and continually referring to "A thinking man's shooter", it brought in a lot of players who might not have otherwise jumped in, given that Mechwarrior has always been a loose interpretation of Battletech. It is what it is - the game's frequently broken because of the odd dichotomy between the two halves of the playerbase. PGI gets a lot of flak because they're trying to satisfy both halves - you can't make everyone happy, when you try you just wind up annoying everyone. They needed early on to pick one or the other, or have built the game with a "Strict BT Rules" mode as the exception to the "FPS first" rule. The HBS battletech game will hopefully give the die-hard BT fans a more comfortable "home turf" to play in, and allow Mechwarrior to be what it is: inspired by Battletech.

Apologies if I ramble - I quit caffeine for the new year and inadvertently drank a giant espresso without thinking about it and now I have so much energy I can feel my hair growing lasfkajsdflajsflkajsdklasjfsdf

Hehe, yea. I can see the problem if you show it from that angle.
I've played all BT/MW games and am a die-hard fan, but MW4 was such a let-down after MW3 because they made the game more arcade for the pvp goal. (3x armor, mostly big weapons only and fugly graphics).

I still played MW4 until MWLL and MWO came out, but all my buddies from MPBT and MW2 stopped playing after 1year of MW4 (before MW4mercs and mechpacks from Mektek came out).
Sometimes I get my old dusty laptop to play MW2 mercs or MW3:PM for nostalgia.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Reno Blade, on 20 January 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

I've played all BT/MW games and am a die-hard fan, but MW4 was such a let-down after MW3 because they made the game more arcade for the pvp goal. (3x armor, mostly big weapons only and fugly graphics).

I think you mean 2x armor, because in vanilla MW4 mechs carried less armor in that game than they can in MWO (default armor in that game was 30 points per ton compared to 32 in this game).

[Tlords]

You had me at make arm mounted weapons better. Make it so, you want to carry ppc's in the arm of your Warhammer.

Make arm mounted weapons better in every way to having them torso mounted.

[Johnny Z]

Tlords, on 20 January 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

You had me at make arm mounted weapons better. Make it so, you want to carry ppc's in the arm of your Warhammer.

Make arm mounted weapons better in every way to having them torso mounted.

Good point. Sized hard points may not be possible, but bonuses for carrying them in proper position is a great idea.

[Reno Blade]

Well, I was originally thinking that double internals would be better than increasing the armor, as you could still get disarmed (wich would be a useful tactic).
Critical hits would be more a thing if you have more structure, as you will nut just lose your side/arm/leg, but the parts inside from a crit and still keep that section.

[MechaBattler]

I don't necessarily agree with your suggestions. But I like where your head is at. More Sim, less FPS. To hell with mainstream standards for FPS games. This isn't Titanfall! It's MechWarrior!

[Jingseng]

New tech isn't about balance.

It's about PGI wanting new things to break and/or nerf.

[Reno Blade]

MechaBattler, on 23 January 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

I don't necessarily agree with your suggestions. But I like where your head is at. More Sim, less FPS. To hell with mainstream standards for FPS games. This isn't Titanfall! It's MechWarrior!

Thanks.
While Titanfall is a great game, this is Mechwarrior and it should not play as Titanfall does (or other faster games). Or we will just have typical fps with different skin and setting.
e.g. I'm big fan of Ghost in the Shell, but that FPS game is just the same old shooter with different colors.

Is there something specific in the list which you can put a finger on?

Jingseng, on 23 January 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

New tech isn't about balance.

It's about PGI wanting new things to break and/or nerf.

That's kinda pessimistic view.
If we don't suggest our direction for the game, how would PGI know what we prefere, so let's give them some ideas?

I don't see the new tech as a mean to balance, but the new tech makes it necessary to look at balance again, as there are very powerful weapons (Heavy Laser, Heavy Gauss, MRMs) added to the arsenal.

Power creep is something nobody wants (even PGI doesn't want "bigger = better").
So here are my suggestions to reduce power creep, while keeping the weapons different (including new weapons).

[SirSlaughter]

Really agree on this part

G-2) Reduce Torso movement speed values by ~50%

[Reno Blade]

Well well... todays announcement for Tech level 3 weapons came out.
No PPC Capacitors so far, but the rest of the list is pretty complete.

Time to refresh the discussion about possible weapon/mech balancing in this thread.

With some of the Mech agility changes already being part of the Skill Tree PTS, few of the listed "nerfs" might come to the game already (torso speed).

But let's focus mostly on the suggested weapon values for now, if the other stuff is too much "nerfed" for your taste...

[Skanderborg]

Snazzy Dragon, on 20 January 2017 - 06:40 AM, said:

I feel obligated to inform you that the majority of the playerbase would probably laugh at all of this and call it stupid, and that you should not be surprised if you get some nasty responses.

People are very critical about everything around here.

[Alan Davion]

Skanderborg, on 14 March 2017 - 03:21 PM, said:

People are very critical about everything around here.

As they should be, considering PGI's history of ROYALLY F***ING UP pretty much everything they try to add or change.

[Reno Blade]

Updated the weapon values in the main post to include new is ER Laser and clan Micro Laser, new PPCs and Gauss variants.

Changes E-1, E-2 and E-3 (Laser)

Spoiler

SL 1.5s cd, 1.0s beam
erSL 1.5s cd, 1.2s beam
ML 2.0s cd, 1.4s beam
erML 2.0s cd, 1.6s beam
LL 2.5s cd, 1.8s beam
erLL 2.5s cd, 2.0s beam

cerSL 1.5s cd, 1.2s beam
cerML 2.0s cd, 1.6s beam
cerLL 2.5s cd, 2.0s beam

cHSL 2.0s cd, 1.5s beam
cHML 2.5s cd, 2.0s beam
cHLL 3.0s cd, 2.5s beam

SP, 1.0s cd, 0.7s beam
MP 1.5s cd, 1.0s beam
LP 2.0s cd, 1.3s beam

cSP 1.2s cd, 0.9s beam
cMP 1.7s cd, 1.2s beam
cLP 2.2s cd, 1.5s beam

cMicro 1.0s cd, 0.6s beam

Changes for E-5 (PPCs)

Spoiler

PPC 4.0s cd, 0.8s autocharge
erPPC 4.0s cd, 1.0s autocharge
cerPPC 4.0s cd, 1.0s autocharge
LPPC 3.5s cd, 0.5s autocharge
HPPC 4.5s cd, 1.5s autocharge

Changes B-1, B-2 and B-3 (ACs)

Spoiler

AC2 1+1 = 2dmg
AC5 1.66+1.66+1.66 = 5dmg
AC10 2+2+2+2+2 = 10dmg
AC20 4+4+4+4+4 = 20dmg

cUAC2 1+1 +1extra = 3dmg
cUAC5 1.66+1.66+1.66 +1.66extra = 6.66dmg
cUAC10 2+2+2+2+2 +2extra = 12dmg
cUAC20 4+4+4+4+4 +4extra = 24dmg

RAC2 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5 cd/2
-> 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5 cd/3
-> 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5 cd/4
-> 0.5+0.5+0.5+0.5 cd/6
pausing the fire will slow down to standard cd again after 2x CD time

RAC5 1+1+1+1+1 cd/2
-> 1+1+1+1+1 cd/3
-> 1+1+1+1+1 cd/4
-> 1+1+1+1+1 cd/6
pausing the fire will slow down to standard cd again after 2x CD time

Changes for B-6 (Gauss)

Spoiler

Gauss 2.5s cd, 2.0s charge, 2.0s charge hold
Light Gauss 2.0s cd, 1.5s charge, 1.5s charge hold
Heavy Gauss 3.0s cd, 2.5s charge, 2.5s charge hold

[Bud Crue]

Question: how do any of your proposals meet goal #4. This directs me to a criticism/second question: In a system of unequal (there are in fact good mechs and bad mechs) applying rule changes and mechanisms to all mechs equally does not seem to be a viable way to address those inequalities. Your system (like PGI's skill tree) seems to be on that path. It would be fine, I think, if all mechs were objectively equal; but they are not, so it isn't. In a game of exceptions (like this one), I think rules have to be just as fluid. To provide competitiveness to mechs with low positioned, low number and/or varied hard points in a game where mechs with high hard points, high numbers of hard points or the ability to boat are at objective advantages you have to have exceptional rules for increasing the capabilities of those disadvantaged mechs, or exceptional rules decreasing the capabilities of the superior mechs.

As an academic exercise: Salut.

[Reno Blade]

Bud Crue, on 17 March 2017 - 03:36 AM, said:

Question: how do any of your proposals meet goal #4. This directs me to a criticism/second question: In a system of unequal (there are in fact good mechs and bad mechs) applying rule changes and mechanisms to all mechs equally does not seem to be a viable way to address those inequalities. Your system (like PGI's skill tree) seems to be on that path. It would be fine, I think, if all mechs were objectively equal; but they are not, so it isn't. In a game of exceptions (like this one), I think rules have to be just as fluid. To provide competitiveness to mechs with low positioned, low number and/or varied hard points in a game where mechs with high hard points, high numbers of hard points or the ability to boat are at objective advantages you have to have exceptional rules for increasing the capabilities of those disadvantaged mechs, or exceptional rules decreasing the capabilities of the superior mechs.

As an academic exercise: Salut.

Hi Bud, do you mean this goal?
D.) Increase performance of low hardpoint variants vs boats

I tried to address this with the reload mechanic as stated in the note between changes and build examples:

Quote

Note:

E-1, M-1 and B-1 will increase TTK even with big alphas, as the damage is much more spread if the shooter is not very skilled.
E-8, M-2 and B-7 will further increase TTK, as boating weapons will have lower DPS from reload limits. Players have the choice between burst (boating) or sustained dps (less hardpoints used).

Quote

E-8) Reloading 1x PPC, 1x LL/LP, 2x ML and 4x SL at a time
M-2) Reloading up to 20LRM, 20MRM, 12ATM and 12SRM/Streak ammo at a time
B-7) Reloading 1x Gauss, 1x AC20, 1x AC10, 1x AC5 or 2x AC2 at a time

Take the last example build to see different boats (1x, 2x and 3x the loadout) to see the difference in cooldown effects in the different "boats".
there is a diminishing return when using more weapons if you don't have long times out of combat to reload all your weapons. (reduces the alpha-strike possibility after the initial volley)

Quote

Player1: 1xERLL, 2x ML build vs Player2: 2x ERLL, 4x ML build vs Player3: 3x ERLL, 6xML build
Spoiler

Player 1 can can reload all 3 lasers without waiting time and can use both ML every 3.4s (2.0s cd, 1.4s beam) and the ERLL every 4.5s (2.5s cd, 2.0s beam)

Player 2 will have to wait for the second ERLL and second pair of ML for additional cd time (2.0s for ML and 2.5s for ERLL) but as the beam duration is quite close to the cd time, Player2 can fire 2 ML every 2.0 seconds and one ERLL every 2.5 seconds.

Player3 will have to wait for the second Laser and also for the third ERLL and ML pair.
But as the second ERLL/2xML are coming off cd faster than the third will start, the advantage of a 3^rd ERLL and 5^th/6^th ML is only in burst fire of initial Alpha or when able to pause the combat to fully reload.

The advantage of Player 2 vs Player1 is not 100% more weapons fired (double), but “only” 70% more.

The advantage of Player 3 vs Player2 is 0% in sustained brawl and only shows when able to cool down in between volleys (peek and hide).

This provides a boost for Goal D.) increased performance for low hardpoint variants vs boats.

Edited by Reno Blade, 17 March 2017 - 05:19 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Reno Blade, on 17 March 2017 - 05:16 AM, said:

Hi Bud, do you mean this goal?
...

Hmmm.

Given your citations I think I just read this wrong. I was reading "low hardpoint variants" as variants with hard point that are positioned low on their mechs and/or low in number.

I see now, with your explanation, how your proposal reduces the impact of boating relative to other single weapon types. I was thinking you were trying to address the short comings of mechs like the Dragon or Cataphract.