Jump to content

Will You Still Play Is Mechs After The Pts Goes Live?

BattleMechs Balance

108 replies to this topic

#81 FireStoat

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Tracker
  • The Tracker
  • 1,053 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 12:52 AM

View PostKmieciu, on 07 March 2017 - 11:15 PM, said:


Huntsman (up to 8 missile hardpoints LOL): nothing


Huntsman Pakhet, the one that actually gets 10% missile velocity, only gets it as an 8/8 bonus and loses it when using more than the 4 torso hardpoints. I mean, I get where you're coming from but the Pakhet is pretty well balanced to begin with. Almost none of the stock config omnipods for the variants are worth keeping the marginal bonuses they provide.

Other examples of clan mechs losing nearly nothing in terms of quirks is pretty valid. I think the worst offenders though are the clan mechs that didn't have quirks to start with, like the Marauder IIC, that are suddenly now slanted towards a big advantage. I sincerely do feel bad for Inner Sphere pilots and what's going on with the changes.

#82 Kmieciu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 3,437 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 08 March 2017 - 01:11 AM

View PostFireStoat, on 08 March 2017 - 12:52 AM, said:


Huntsman Pakhet, the one that actually gets 10% missile velocity, only gets it as an 8/8 bonus and loses it when using more than the 4 torso hardpoints. I mean, I get where you're coming from but the Pakhet is pretty well balanced to begin with.

Pretty well balanced? Against what? A 7 missile Cyclops?
Don't tell me it's balanced against a Hunchback-4SP.

How come you don't see people in group queue using Hunchback-4SP?...
Is it maybe because the Huntsman can fit Endo, Ferro, XL engine, 5 jump jets, 16 DHS and 8 SRM6 with 600 missiles?

Do you feel HBK-4SP is even stronger so that it requires nerfing?

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 March 2017 - 01:11 AM.


#83 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:09 AM

View PostKmieciu, on 07 March 2017 - 11:15 PM, said:

I think PGI is using new balancing method: it's called "batch balancing" or "balancing by script".

How else would they come to conclusion that Commando-3A was overpowered with its missile cooldown -30% ?
Meanwhile Mist Lynx Prime still gets missile cooldown -30% ?
You know why? Because MLX has this quirk hidden in 2 omnipods and set-of-8 bonus.
That proves someone at PGI took no more than 10 seconds before deciding on quirk change.

And what about Hunchback-4SP? 50-tonner with 2 missile hardpoints lost 20% missile cooldown and 10% SRM spread.

What did Clan 50-tonners lose?
Hunchback-IIC-B (4 missile hardpoints): nothing
Huntsman (up to 8 missile hardpoints LOL): nothing

Exactly.

#84 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:19 AM

View PostErrinovar, on 07 March 2017 - 11:47 PM, said:


I would love to, but I'm not willing to devote resources towards a 7.5 hour download so I can test for them. In fact it is the BS download time that made me decide to go steam after taking an 8 month break (it was telling me 13 hours, it took 20 minutes to install on Steam).


Same here. Redownloading the whole game is insanity for what we're trying to achieve, and the results from those who have done the download and played the PTS skill maze game have made it clear that this proposal is a steaming pile of poorly thought out failure on so many levels.

#85 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:22 AM

View PostJay Leon Hart, on 07 March 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:


I highly suggest you actually play the current PTS, as this was one of the changes made.


No, they cut the cbill cost and left the XP cost, so there is still a respec penalty. And even if there wasn't, that doesn't change the fact that the skill maze is a tangled web of false choices and worthless crap you have to take so you can make the same build (weapons excluded) on every mech as everyone else. It also doesn't change the staggering nerfing of the high-end quirks needed to keep most IS mechs relevant. And it does't change the horribly negative effects the loss of mobility and engine decoupling will have, both of which will kill brawling and slide the game even more towards mechs packing huge amounts of long-range firepower and just alpha-striking each other to death from long range.

The skill maze and balance changes as shown on the PTS are an utter failure. I don't need to waste 8 hours of my life downloading the game a second time to proof that as everyone else has already done anymore than I need to put my hand on a hot stove to know that it would hurt.

Edited by oldradagast, 08 March 2017 - 04:23 AM.


#86 Jay Leon Hart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 4,669 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:59 AM

View Postoldradagast, on 08 March 2017 - 04:22 AM, said:

*whining*


Sure, you know best. I'll be on the PTS, testing the changes and brawling like a champ. You just cry in your echo chamber.

There are major flaws with the Skill Tree, however there are also great improvements. But you already know that, because you know everything.

#87 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,936 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 08 March 2017 - 05:29 AM

View PostJay Leon Hart, on 08 March 2017 - 04:59 AM, said:


Sure, you know best. I'll be on the PTS, testing the changes and brawling like a champ. You just cry in your echo chamber.

There are major flaws with the Skill Tree, however there are also great improvements. But you already know that, because you know everything.


I agree with you in principle but what are the great improvements you refer to? Trying to tone down my bile here, and be serious.

What/how is the skills tree as currently proposed improving the game? How do you see it?

To me I see the Jump jet and defense branches the only real potential "improvements" over current performance characteristics. I see the Auxiliary branch as a potential improvment but also a P2W mechanism with the potential for extreme abuse. The other branches I see as proxies for the current "skill tree" but with which I am required to spend all my nodes and will still be missing some of my current fuctionality while gaining aspects I never bothered with or wanted before (hill climb, speed retention, arm speed, etc).

At the macro scale changes, I see engine decoupling being good (not great) for some mechs and clear detriments to others. I see the nerfs to most currently under performing mechs in the game as a true horror to the idea of creating a testing environment and even worse if they go live. I see the UI of the skills tree as being utterly tedious and not engaging. I view the cost structure of it as irrelevant to veteran players and new ones alike (no matter how much some complain) but I think the overall impact of it will be one that destroys mech diversity. I see some aspects of the skills tree potentially increasing TTK (agility performance improvements on some mechs, defensive tree, etc.) but I see far more aspects driving it down even further (potential for firepower nodes to dominate, the potential abuse of the auxiliary branch, the negative effect of engine decoupling slowing twisting down on some weaker IS mechs).

So back to the question, what do you, what do any of you see as the improvements provided by the skills tree. To my eyes, most of the skills tree represents a negative to game play and the existing mechanics of this game, but yeah there are a couple of things that I see as potential improvements.

Edited by Bud Crue, 08 March 2017 - 05:31 AM.


#88 Jay Leon Hart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 4,669 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:15 AM

View PostBud Crue, on 08 March 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:


I agree with you in principle but what are the great improvements you refer to? Trying to tone down my bile here, and be serious.

What/how is the skills tree as currently proposed improving the game? How do you see it?

So back to the question, what do you, what do any of you see as the improvements provided by the skills tree. To my eyes, most of the skills tree represents a negative to game play and the existing mechanics of this game, but yeah there are a couple of things that I see as potential improvements.


The Miscellaneous tree offers some interesting options, though truth be told I mostly just take the first choice and leave it. I have yet to try any Light 'mechs in this version of the PTS and the UAV line does look good for most of mine.

Sensor Systems is a mixed bag. On the one hand, 6-8 points gets me what I "need" from this tree, however on this build I have been focused mostly on mixed loadouts and none so far have need increased sensor range of enhanced zoom (whereas last time I tested mostly single weapon system builds, with a few Ballistic/Energy combos, due to the Firepower trees).

Mech Operations is still awful, pretty much the worst example of a "must have" tree in my opinion. Sure, there are options, but it's a good example of why people dislike the haphazard nature of some trees.

Jump Capabilities is the only tree I simply have not touched. I've read good things, but since Jump Jets aren't all that good to begin with, I'm not inclined to "waste" points in this tree. Maybe when I try Lights? Maybe...

Agility tree... seems to be a divisive one. I'm of the opinion that about half of the tree is useless to a good number of my 'mechs and as such, I generally haven't bothered investing more than 15-20 points. Perhaps I'm too used to piloting fresh 'mechs with no skills in the current system that I don't notice the lack of turn speed or accel/decel. Perhaps I'm just not good enough of a pilot to notice it. Either way, of the 'mechs I have tested since the engine agility decoupling (mostly Mediums and Assaults, with a few Heavies) I can't say they feel any worse than on live with less than half of the Agility tree unlocked. Some even feel better, though I'm sure someone can prove that they are statistically inferior. I guess I just don't care/notice.

Armor Structure is another of those "must have" trees, though I'd argue it suffers less than Mech Operations as most of it is at lease decent, with the notable exceptions being easily avoided. I've even found myself skipping some structure buffs to free up skill points for other areas - mostly more for Sensor Systems, though also for Weapons. Although the crit capabilities of weapons from the previous version were reduced and they added crit chance reduction, I still find my components lose weapons before being in danger of being destroyed.

Weapons, You know, I almost miss the old separate trees. While they did inadvertently punish multi weapon loadouts, they at least allowed you to choose between cooldown, range, heat gen and [special attribute] without "wasting" points. As it stands, the new tree does support a more diverse loadout, if only by gating heat gen behind various weapon specific buffs. I don't like the new Weapons tree compared to the old Firepower tree, even though it helps diverse builds it also helps the PPC + Gauss combo everyone loves to hate (if the forums are to be believed). all that tasty, tasty velocity, so close the the Gauss extended charge.

Hm, I think I ended up rambling instead of actually answering the question. I do that, sorry. Posted Image
The builds I've found to be boosted the most are my oddball AC/SRM/PPC combos. If we had the ability to better tweak velocity buffs, I would love to get them all equal on a 'mech so I know firing at anything further than point blank doesn't spread the damage everywhere.

#89 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:26 AM

View PostTaxxian, on 08 March 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:

@WolvesX

They cut down on IS Quirks because the IS Skill tree is stronger, so there must be bonuses your Cicada gets that are stronger than the ones its clan counterparts get.

You just chose to ignore those bonuses and that invalidates your whole argument! The Cicada is probably still going to loose but this is a big change and I think we can not expect everything to be perfectly balanced after such huge overall changes...

Please stop beeing so negative... you just talk down every new feature that simply does not help anyone!

"We" already canceled Energy Draw... ok now I run arround with an 2 LBX20 4 SRM4 Alphastrike that obliterates everything closer than 200m in no time... when I kill you next time with it you should think "Maybe Energy Draw wasnt that bad an idea..."

You sadly misunderstand all my efforts here with these two threads.

I want MWO to be good. I would love if this game had 1.000.000 mio players.

BUT we have to say the truth to make something better.

YOU can't get something done, if you don't tell it how it is, see it how it is.

#90 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,966 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 08 March 2017 - 07:54 AM

View Postoldradagast, on 08 March 2017 - 04:22 AM, said:

No, they cut the cbill cost and left the XP cost,

And both are STILL more than "don't worry they are only placeholder values" we were reassured at MechCon.

LOL, I don't know who is funnier... the clowns running PGI or those of us who keep taking them at their word.

Edited by Appogee, 08 March 2017 - 07:55 AM.


#91 L Y N X

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 629 posts
  • LocationStrana Mechty

Posted 08 March 2017 - 08:33 AM

are the changes finalized yet?

#92 Lupis Volk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 2,126 posts
  • LocationIn the cockpit of the nearest Light Battlemech.

Posted 08 March 2017 - 11:42 AM

View PostWolvesX, on 08 March 2017 - 06:26 AM, said:

You sadly misunderstand all my efforts here with these two threads.

I want MWO to be good. I would love if this game had 1.000.000 mio players.

BUT we have to say the truth to make something better.

YOU can't get something done, if you don't tell it how it is, see it how it is.

And to be fair, kissing *** is worse than being a negative Nelly. So your really doing us a service by being the squeaky wheel.

#93 Chados

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • LocationSomewhere...over the Rainbow

Posted 08 March 2017 - 12:09 PM

Nope. After the change goes live I think I'm going to be playing Clanwarrior Online exclusively. I've been figuring out how to replicate my Jester in Clan mechs and a Timberwolf with the TBR-S right torso about gets me there.

#94 MookieDog

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Gunjin
  • Gunjin
  • 93 posts
  • LocationDC

Posted 08 March 2017 - 03:21 PM

Actually at this point there is little reason to play IS mechs any more. All of the comp teams are pretty much all clan tech. What do you have to prove playing a bucket of bolts? FW is a Clan stomp and pretty much most of the pug matches are determined of which side has more clan mechs. I kept records for a weeks worth of games. The highest percentage of IS mechs to Clan never went above 50%. Its all meta at this point: Kodiak 3 or Marauder IIC, Timber Wolf or Night Gyr, Hunchback IIC or Shadowcat for the most part, then its Arctic Cheetah all the way.

Honestly MWO could go down to about 12 Clan mechs and there would almost be no difference in game play.

If you want to get your *** kicked, play in IS mechs. If you think its bad now, wait until after the skill tree revamp. No mo' speed tweak and radar dep for the IS, no no no. IS is going to be slow slow slow, and that range.. woof, hello targeting computers.

The clans should be past Terra long before June. Russ might as well call his game "Clan Warrior Online"

Edited by MookieDog, 08 March 2017 - 03:22 PM.


#95 soapyfrog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 409 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 03:46 PM

View PostJay Leon Hart, on 07 March 2017 - 05:12 PM, said:

I highly suggest you actually play the current PTS, as this was one of the changes made.

Again: You still need to pay to respec. The new nodes you are getting are full price, 60k c-bills and 800xp.

Going back to a node you previously unlocked still costs you 400xp.

Respecs still carry a heavy cost in time and money, and this increases the per mech grind to well over 72800xp and 5.46 million c-bills. Even unlocking all nodes, which would cost something like 14 million c-bills and 180,000xp, would not free you from respec costs as each respec would cost you most likely thousands of xp.

#96 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 05:48 PM

View PostJay Leon Hart, on 08 March 2017 - 04:59 AM, said:


Sure, you know best. I'll be on the PTS, testing the changes and brawling like a champ. You just cry in your echo chamber.

There are major flaws with the Skill Tree, however there are also great improvements. But you already know that, because you know everything.


Whatever - you can't refute the facts, so you resort to personal attacks and various groundless claims.

You clearly don't get it. There's no need for me to download the stupid PTS and waste my time already proving what everyone else has clearly demonstrated. The concepts and numbers proposed there are horribly flawed. Maybe you don't feel that way - that's your problem, not mine - but crying about the facts and other people's reflections on those facts as you have proves nothing and invalidates whatever incoherent attempt you were trying to make to support the skill maze drivel.

Edited by oldradagast, 08 March 2017 - 06:06 PM.


#97 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 05:51 PM

View PostAppogee, on 08 March 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

And both are STILL more than "don't worry they are only placeholder values" we were reassured at MechCon.

LOL, I don't know who is funnier... the clowns running PGI or those of us who keep taking them at their word.


The third option - the jokers that dismiss all the facts we've posted as "whining" while making laughably insane claims that the skill maze "is an improvement" while being unable to back up any of those claims - those are the worst.

The mountain of facts condemning the skill maze as an baffling pile of false choices, rubbish gateway skills, and lack of any real roles is real and undeniable. The fact that respecs cost money is the same thing - a problem that we shouldn't even have to be discussing since PGI should be smarter than that. And that doesn't even touch the dismal levels of real customization in the skill maze - unless you like taking crap skills "to be different" - or how the skill maze is just yet another baffling obstacle to new players.

On top of this is the mobility nerfs, the loss of high-end quirks, the decoupling of engines from movement, which in turn leads to smaller engines, less brawling and close speed, and more weapon boating... and the list just keeps going. It's a failure, even though some people obviously don't get that fact.

Edited by oldradagast, 08 March 2017 - 06:06 PM.


#98 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:50 PM

I play Clan Mechs primarily, so this would probably just end up causing me to run ONLY Clan mechs, with like 1 or 2 exceptions.

I know it's a thing to keep self-repeating that "these changes will be whined about to death" and that "doomsayers will doomsay"... but there is always going to be a point where if the whales stop putting in money due to "a bad idea™", well.. that's going to be on PGI to backtrack and that's not my problem. Playerbase be damned for some (I mean, it'll cull people for sure), but money talks and anything that makes them less likely to buy mechpacks (because the new system will ensure that buying a mechpack would be a bad decision/chore to grind).

But hey, I'm just the guy that tries to be practical about these matters... and not just to doomsay to doomsay. When a functional change has a chance to be detrimental to the game... well, ignoring feedback is a great way of accelerating the process.

I mean, I'm sure PTSv2 was a success right?

#99 oldradagast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 07:18 PM

Agreed, Deathlike. There's a sickness out there these days that if a huge percentage of people dislike something and back it up with facts, "Well, they must be wrong." Same idea if they all say something is true and present the facts to back it up - simply by the majority agreeing on something, "they must be wrong." It's some sort of strange mix of people needing to be "smarter than everyone else" and buying into internet nonsense, fake news, and so forth that tries to pretend there are no objective facts and if anyone tells you there ARE such facts, "well, they are part of the problem / conspiracy."

The skill maze is a bad system based on facts:
- The interface is horrible and the maze-like structure makes no sense; this will punish new players in a game that already lacks new players and has a hard time keeping the few it gets
- Nobody is interested in a maze-like structure of skills where they have to pick trash skills to get to the same pile of good skills every time. Making big changes without justification is a bad idea, and that's a fact.
- Gating the skills everyone needs behind trash through which they must grind is proven poor game design
- The end result is boring, cookie-cutter skill choices on nearly all mechs without roles, mech specific abilities, and everything else we were promised
- The mechs, once leveled, still perform worse than they do today. Nerfing people's toys without good reason is poor game design, and that's a fact
- The grind is worse now than it was before per mech, with respect costs. Nerfing people's toys and then making them have to regrind to get their abilities back - and still have weaker toys - is even worse game design
- The various changes to nerf mobility, by definition, encourage more long-range, stagnant game play - the time of gameplay MWO has had problems preventing from utterly dominating the game for years. This is a fact, as is stagnant game play with few options is poor game design.

#100 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 03:44 AM

Sums it up very well!

MWO has a historic low player count for a reason.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users