55 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

J0anna, on 16 July 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

How far down this slippery slope do you want to go? First it's normalize engines, then "weapons must be balanced", then "upgrades must be balanced"...How far before this game becomes NOTHING like battletech. It's bad enough that PGI refuses to bring lore into this game (you've had more than enough chance), change the tech to be equal and you even remove tech from 'Battletech". Some of us don't want "Walking World of Tanks".

This isn't WoT or CoD, it's supposed to be Battletech, and more exactly MechWarrior (did you even play that game)? Battlemechs aren't supposed to be 'equal', they are supposed to be 'equivalent', there is a difference. PGI (to their credit) is trying to keep them equivalent through quirks, and while not perfect, they have done a fairly good job. I bought the marauder the second it was announced not because I wanted to place clan equipment on it and make it a clan mech, I bought it because of "Decision at Thunder Rift". I happen to think this new tech will bring us much closer to equivalence than ever, and I can't wait to see that.

How far down the slope? It all depends on the goal. If the goal (all sarcasm, joking and my own personal opinion aside) is indeed to make MWO some sort of "e-sport" than they have to go all the f***ing way to the bottom of that slope. If that is indeed the goal of PGI's stewardship of this game then yup, everything they put into the game must be equally viable to be played in that e-sport or it should not be put in.

If their goal is to make some sort of "immersive experience" wherein the "rules" of the "battletech universe" are to be consistently applied for good or ill, then that would be an entirely different game.

What PGI has done instead is made an "online shooter set in the rich BattleTech Universe" (https://mwomercs.com/game ). That game...the one we play...is NOT an e-sport, as all mechs are not equally viable (as any one capable of doing basic math or actually playing the game well knows), it is NOT based on immersion or the "rules" of the Battletech universe. It is instead an arena shooter that is only tangentially related to BattleTech, and only an e-sport in the mind of PGI's president and those few dedicated players who find the meta and play it with expertise.

The question is not deciding how far down the slippery slope we should go, but rather for PGI to first decide on a slope that they and ideally their customers have an interest in going down in the first place.

[Valhallan]

While it's true some mechs were just bad according to lore, in most cases it was just a bad reputation. Yea IS were "bad" compared to clans in lore but they also were able to field a LOT more of them, and did do so. In fact when PGI started finally modifying the tonnage separately for FP i was hoping they would just use that and be done with it. Go ahead and keep your lore-values on your Clan tech, go ahead and keep your fairy dust XL, in exchange FP will be Clans at 100 tons and IS at 250 tons (the lore matchup). The MM for QP can be the same deal, 800 tons base with +-100, clan mechs being worth 2.5 times their tonnage, you wanna play your lore-op direfats and carebear? timberdog? i hope you're l33t enough to take down 2 atlai and a centurion or an atlai + fattlemaster.

As for RNG-esus yea the previous MW didn't have it, but lets be real with the HSR and hitreg as they are we are all RNG-esusing already anyway. Sometimes my splat jenner one-rear shots heavies, sometimes a heavy can tank 3 and still be cherry red. Sometimes my damage registers on the item i hit on my screen and sometimes it registers on a nearby item instead despite being far off. An RNG-esus crit system that only applies at the last 33% hp of a component, and likely will never occur given how heavy alphas are, is frankly no big deal. Well i guess it would make heavies/assaults truly fear the MG spider, but is buffing lights in that way really so bad? .

[Angel of Annihilation]

King Harkinian, on 15 July 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

I don't understand why people think every mech should be viable.

We're talking about a fundamentally imbalanced IP that explicitly states some of these mechs are **** based on lore reasons.

This is how I feel. I want to play Mechwarrior, as close to the IP as possible, not Robowarrior Online. All these suggestions go against the IP in a big way.

Also I don't understand what the issue is with quirks. I play alot of IS mechs and have to deal with quirks the same as anyone else does. If the build I want to use can take advantage of the quirks, good for me. If not, I still run the build I want. Occasionally I will build a mech specifically to the Quirks as well and usually end up with something at least half way decent. I drop into a match with them, compete fully against those naughty, OP Clan mechs and have a good time. What is the problem?

[Felicitatem Parco]

Viktor Drake, on 16 July 2017 - 08:29 AM, said:

This is how I feel. I want to play Mechwarrior, as close to the IP as possible, not Robowarrior Online. All these suggestions go against the IP in a big way.

Firstly there is no real MechWarrior IP if you think about it. There is a BattleTech IP and MechWarrior is just an offshoot of that. Name any two Mechwarrior games which were the same. There are none because there is no Defined rule set for what MechWarrior is. It is not merely a first-person version of BattleTech because BattleTech does not have Provisions for real-time combat. Also a literal translation BattleTech into a first-person vehicle game would be terrible.

That means MechWarrior developers have the option to exercise great artistic Liberty. In the case in the case of MechWarrior Online the developers took the liberty of making it a game of even teams fighting against each other where everybody is supposed to have roughly the same amount of fun. This is a far better choice than sticking to the existing BattleTech IP because making a PvP game as per BattleTech would result in Clan players having much more fun than the inner sphere players; that would not help the game last very long because nobody would play on the inner sphere rosters.

So, when I say "balance the tech" it means "make it 12v12-friendly" but it doesn't have to be identical. In the case of engines, PGI can close the gap in tech and reduce the intensity of IS Health Quirks. OR, they can keep these massive health quirks to "balance" the tech disparity.

If you want to follow the IP, then you want massive Quirks for the inner Sphere in order to keep the 12v12-friendliness value.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 16 July 2017 - 09:08 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Wintersdark, on 15 July 2017 - 11:16 PM, said:

Mechs don't die when they lose a certain number of engine crits.

This isn't tabletop.

Individual crits are never destroyed, only whole objects once their health is reduced to zero. The crit system in MWO is really wholly unlike tabletop, bearing only a superficial resemblance. Side torso loss causes death with an XL because they're coded that way, not because of the number of crits destroyed.

No PGI doesnt except they are using the actual BT rule 3 strikes and you are out for the isXL when one side torso is destroyed. I think we can agree that for isXL/cXL/LFE, losing only one side torso should not take the mech out of the game, hai? That they should have non-lethal penalties that is currently only enjoyed by the cXL, and soon-to-be LFE.

I had noted that by saying PGI can change the idea that they are using a 4 engine crit rule instead of 3 crit for side torso destruction in an attempt to appease anyone frothing at the mouse about the engine crit rule. Or simply that they are not sticking to that hard rule but simply using it as a guideline/flavor due to MWO not being a boardgame using dice to determine hit/miss and location for each weapon.

Then PGI can change the flag/code so when one ST is destroyed whether it be an isXL, cXL or LFE the mech is not dead/engine is not scrammed. Only when the CT or second torso is completed destroyed is the mech out.

That is partially why a mech with isXL is setup to dead with the loss of one side torso is BT 3 strikes and you are out. And part of the reason PGI finally added heat penalty for the cXL, and now the LFE with the loss of one side torso flag. The movement penalty comes from the BT heat scale, 2 "engine crits" /flag produces a constant 10 heat (5 for each crit), and on the BT heat scale a mech loses a total of 2 movement points. For a Timberwolf that has a 5/8 movment, with 2 engine crits, from any section including simply the loss of one side torso, it would have been reduced to a 3/5 movement, or it going from a 54/86.4 kph to 32.4/54 kph.

But should a fully, active functional engine crit system be added now, whether or not it is made robust? iie. It could make life interesting though. Players would have to reconsider how much armor can be frontloaded since an arty/airstrike or a pesky light would definitely ruin many pilots days. And I do not have faith in PGI pulling it off to be worth it, so the next step would be for them to use BT engine crit/heatscale penalties as a guideline without being hardlocked to the 3 strikes/out scenario flag, aka complete destruction of one side torso w/isXL in it.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 16 July 2017 - 09:29 AM.

[Snowbluff]

I like health quirks. It adds dimension to this game.

Clan damage output has been nerfed again.

Not a big deal.

[Nightbird]

3 CRIT at what hp? Remember that table top has half the internal structure at MWO, so there are a lot more internal hits in this game. If it is 20hp per crit, then sure. If 10, then you'll see atlas dying from engine crits when barely orange.

Edited by NlGHTBlRD, 16 July 2017 - 09:47 AM.

[LordNothing]

you left out that ff is inefficient and that is sinks are bigger. if you are gonna be salty get all the facts lined up.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 July 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[Peace2U]

This is one of the best forum posts I have read in a long time.
An educated discussion, not just opinion and whining.
Thank you folks for your thoughts.

I would like to address the elephant in the room, now.

It seems that the core reason we are having this discussion is about balance.
This problem can easily go away, if we completely separated the 'factions'.
I believe it is wrong that both IS and clan mechs are on the same team. (hearing groans from the MWO universe)
All mission types should be populated with either all IS or all clan players.
In this way, you will always be on an even playing field.
If you want to mix-it-up with the opposing faction, click the faction warfare button, and hold on to your A$$.

Just my opinion, don't kill the messenger.

Have fun on the battlefield.

Peace-Out

[Tarl Cabot]

Peace2U, on 16 July 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

This is one of the best forum posts I have read in a long time.
An educated discussion, not just opinion and whining.
Thank you folks for your thoughts.

I would like to address the elephant in the room, now.

It seems that the core reason we are having this discussion is about balance. This problem can easily go away, if we completely separated the 'factions'.

I believe it is wrong that both IS and clan mechs are on the same team. (hearing groans from the MWO universe). All mission types should be populated with either all IS or all clan players. In this way, you will always be on an even playing field.
If you want to mix-it-up with the opposing faction, click the faction warfare button, and hold on to your A$$.

Just my opinion, don't kill the messenger.

Have fun on the battlefield.

Peace-Out

Atm, I do not believe there is enough of a population to split the Quickplay queues in that manner, nor would it resolve the issues being discussed, you may have missed part of the point as these discussions is aimed more at the Faction Play, though QP and Competition Queues could benefit from it. The only time QP comes into play is the good/bad player habits, from teamwork or the lack there of but mostly the Mechlab itself, and how that plays into team play/mech synergy which then the player brings with him to FP.

Players from the Southern Houses who primarily played IS vs IS and rarely ventured into the Clan/IS conflict before PGI rolled out FP 4.1 were rarely involved in these type of discussion. After FP 4.1 more spoke up but it did nothing and many simply quit playing FP.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 16 July 2017 - 11:04 AM.

[Registerfault]

on the topic of engine crits, I think the experience of dying with bright yellow torsos intact because a spider decided to shoot machine guns at you and it destroyed your engine, an event in which there is not a clear and intuitive UI representation of, would enrage and aggrivate players away from the game entirely. this is a mechanic that's explicitly obvious in tabletop, but would be unintuitive and lame in mwo. instead, I think engine crits should have a linear debuff on mech operation, maybe more speed and heat sinking reduction to a certain threshold, rather than resulting in death without component destruction.

[Coolant]

I don't understand the point being made?

[Peace2U]

TC,
According to a previous post: https://mwomercs.com...rs-in-the-game/, there are well over 200,000 players worldwide. (this post was from Jan., so I can only assume the number has gone up since then - and yes, not all would be connected at the same time) - so there is enough of a player base to split the queues.
Also it would be simple enough for PGI to implement.
1. You select select a mech.
2. You press the quickplay button
a. the matchmaker sees your selected mech and assigns you a Que, according to your faction.
3. Play with and against players who have the same attributes/detriments as yourself.
4. Win or lose according to your skills, not due to imbalance.
5. Feel Joy

(sorry about the rant - couldn't help myself)

I re-read the posts, and still missed your point that the discussion was aimed at faction play - a matter of interpretation and perspective, I suppose.
Anyway, I was just looking for the simplest solution to this 'unbalanced' issue - If you want to pilot IS, play with and against IS players. If you want to pilot clan, play with, and combat other clan players. - If you want to mix-it-up, push the faction play button, and stop whining about imbalance, because you asked for it.
Simple problem - Simple solution

See you folks on the battlefield.
Peace

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

I re-read the posts, and still missed your point that the discussion was aimed at faction play - a matter of interpretation and perspective, I suppose.

Anyway, I was just looking for the simplest solution to this 'unbalanced' issue - If you want to pilot IS, play with and against IS players. If you want to pilot clan, play with, and combat other clan players. - If you want to mix-it-up, push the faction play button, and stop whining about imbalance, because you asked for it.
Simple problem - Simple solution

(nods) But think about it, about the only time there is an imbalance it is more likely to show up in FP, with a few exceptions aka initial Kodiak release and UAC10s, where as the QP is always a mix of techs on both sides, so both techs augment each other. In other threads some will ask, why not allow mix tech/mechs, which would practically remove real Clan vs IS distinction. With that not a viable options, that means the techs need to be built with similar foundations since there will not be any type of asymmetric warfare. The engine differences on what happens with the loss of one side torso is the current outlier issue and has been for awhile.

Of course, if Faction Play did not exist, these type of threads would likely be far fewer because the techs do augment each other and there is nothing preventing said drops. Again, the only time it is hard coded to be Clan mechs vs IS mechs is Faction Play, where the issues become more visible.

As for making it Clan vs Clan and IS vs IS in the Solo Queue, I would not have an issue with it. I do not see that happening through for the Group or Competition Queue though, at least with the current format.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 16 July 2017 - 03:56 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Deathlike, on 15 July 2017 - 09:45 PM, said:

Noone wants RNGesus accelerated death. By even the nature of the current system, pretty much every mech's TTK is immediately lowered... it's that all XL based mechs (Clan and IS) would die that much faster. STD engines would still die fast on random coring events, but would at least survive side torso damage (until damage transfer starts being factored in).

Get rid of extra structure damage on critical hits, and divide the structure/armor system so that maximum protection means a larger portion of the HP of a given location is structure, rather than armor. Say we have a Commando now with 8 structure, and 16 armor. Now it's 12 structure, 12 armor. It's 16/32 CT is now 24/24 structure/armor instead. Adjust armor/ton accordingly so it's the same amount of armor weight for the new coverage system. You'll have the same raw damage tolerance, but more of a chance to crit something before the section is reduced to mush.

Then get to making things like actuators, engines, gyros, and so on having more than a placeholder in your giant robot so we actually have one that slowly falls apart due to enough structure damage vs. automatically having to be obliterated in a single vital section to die. If not two.

[Peace2U]

TC,
I see your point, and your right about faction play.
Every time there is a competition in FP, the IS gets stomped, so you can really see the divergence in tech.
The upcoming 'civil war' equipment will bring things a little closer, but it will never compare.
Bottom Line: We need to get used to it.
(Personally, I like being the underdog. It makes the occasional win, - - - extra sweet)