Jump to content

So Mechwarrior 5, In The Eyes Of Pc Gamer


159 replies to this topic

#141 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:18 PM

View PostBombast, on 11 October 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:


Honestly, I find none of that compelling. Damage as a 'pure' balance metric is simply a poor choice - It doesn't take into account damage efficiency and it's the most easily gamed stat. It also favors certain weapons that are generally considered poor - For example, my best three damage mechs use the LB-20X (Warhammer), RAC/5 (Bushwacker), and LRMs (Catapult). Could I use that to say that not only are IS mechs superior, but those are the best weapons in the game?

As for ping... come on, man. You know thats a cop out. If you really thought ping was a factor, you'd have to bow out and admit none of your stats are 'admissible.'

Actually my Hunchback IIC(O) runs Dual LB20s and it's one of my best KDR mechs across a large number of games. I also tend to do really well in my Dual LB20 K2 and Warhammer. They're great weapons.

And man, I really figured I explained why Ping matters for LAST HIT KILL but not so much for doing damage in general. Let me break it down for you.

When talking about last hit kills I'm competing with my own team mates. They have at least a 200ms advantage on me. How many ms earlier do they need to hit an enemy mech to get the kill over me? Factoring in average(young male gamer in this case) variance in reaction time, not very much.

Doing damage however, especially in MWO due to how relatively slow most mechs move a 200ms ping makes as close to zero difference as to not matter. Not to mention travel time of many of the weapons. It could matter in hitting the CT instead of the ST for a kill shot but I'm still doing damage.


Now, would I like to have more stats to compare with? Hell yes. I'd love to see KMDD per mech. I'd love to see Component Destructions per mech. How much damage tanked? Definitely. Average Match Score? Sure why not. There are a lot of stats I'd like to have but we don't. All I know is that while there are always temporary imbalances of one or two mechs that are way above the curve, they do get balanced and overall the game is the most balanced MW game we've ever had.

Technically the sheer variation in mechs seen just before a new one gets released into the game in any one match is actually the most proof you need. I see 20 different mechs most matches, and not the 20 most recent, we're talking Catapults, Ravens, Hunchbakcs. Some of the very first mechs released ever. And on top of that I'm seeing UACs, machine guns, lasers, MRMs, SRMs, LRMs, Gauss, PPCs all in one match. Same as my top mechs; there is PPC, Lasers, Gauss, UACs, MRMs, etc. present. I can give you example after example of matches with 20 different mechs but it won't make any difference, you'll always have an excuse.

The balance will never be perfect but blindly drinking the bittervet koolaid means you will never realise that the game is actually well balanced with only ever a temporary handful of outliers. They should always strive to improve balance because again, it's not perfect and it never will be but I think the hate and the indoctrination is too high for some to ever see what the actual state of the balance is. The best part is when they address particularly bad cases of imbalance and those same grumpy bittervets are up in arms about how it's a bad change and how dare they touch my broken OP murderbot (PPC/Gauss, just as the most recent example).

But I digress. I'll enjoy my stable of 200+ IS and Clan murderbots using every weapon (apart from LRMs) available to me to murder all the things.

Because I can.

Edited by ForceUser, 11 October 2017 - 12:18 PM.


#142 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:22 PM

Of course ping matters. Can still do ok on all servers though.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 October 2017 - 12:22 PM.


#143 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,943 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:25 PM

View PostForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 12:18 PM, said:

Actually my Hunchback IIC(O) runs Dual LB20s and it's one of my best KDR mechs across a large number of games. I also tend to do really well in my Dual LB20 K2 and Warhammer.


Another example to illustrate the inherent state of imbalance. It takes a 65 or 70 ton IS mech (neither of which has as high of hardpoints or jumpjets) to run an equivelant build on a 50 ton clan mech. Just sayin.

#144 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:27 PM

I hope this is only alpha, because the pictures indicate that P.G.I can't even make I.K work for a single person game.

If it launches without it, then it's pretty sad and the usual expected standard, I hope to be proven wrong.

#145 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:34 PM

View PostBud Crue, on 11 October 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

Another example to illustrate the inherent state of imbalance. It takes a 65 or 70 ton IS mech (neither of which has as high of hardpoints or jumpjets) to run an equivelant build on a 50 ton clan mech. Just sayin.

The IS mechs have quirks and more armour/structure. The K2 rolls damage WAAAAY better than a hunchback IIC ever will and the Warhammer's LB20s are plenty high enough.

I find them all decently balanced with each other with different strengths.

Or are you saying lighter mechs should be inherently worse?

View PostCathy, on 11 October 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

I hope this is only alpha, because the pictures indicate that P.G.I can't even make I.K work for a single person game.

If it launches without it, then it's pretty sad and the usual expected standard, I hope to be proven wrong.

It's very early alpha. Pretty sure the build we'll see at mechcon will be alpha too.

The problem with IK isn't inability to implement, it's the performance hit and hit-reg issues it causes in an online PVP game.

Edited by ForceUser, 11 October 2017 - 12:38 PM.


#146 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:37 PM

View PostCathy, on 11 October 2017 - 12:27 PM, said:

I hope this is only alpha, because the pictures indicate that P.G.I can't even make I.K work for a single person game.

If it launches without it, then it's pretty sad and the usual expected standard, I hope to be proven wrong.


Its a good time for them to be making a single player game.

Using Fallout 4 as an example again, being the top modern single player game made.

That game is still getting massive updates 2 years after release. The ability for games to continue to improve after release is very generous. That game has had entire game modes added, survival mode, entire retexturing in the form of a 60 GB download I think it is. VR version. Construction kit 6 months after release, DLC releases going into a full year after.

Its had everything imaginable updated, and is getting entirely new content for sale this month, 2 years after release.

Edited by Johnny Z, 11 October 2017 - 12:41 PM.


#147 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,943 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:42 PM

View PostForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

The IS mechs have quirks and more armour/structure. The K2 rolls damage WAAAAY better than a hunchback IIC ever will and the Warhammer's LB20s are plenty high enough.

I find them all decently balanced with each other with different strengths.

Or are you saying lighter mechs should be inherently worse?


Nope. I think all mechs regardless of weight or tech should be equally viable. But PGI obviously thinks weight and tech do matter, otberwise someone needs to explain why we have drop deck limitations in cw. But thats here nor there. Do you really think a 50 ton clan mech ought to be balanced relative to a 70 ton IS mech? I think it ought to be 50 to 50 and 70 to 70. But that's crazy talk I know.

#148 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:48 PM

View PostBud Crue, on 11 October 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

Nope. I think all mechs regardless of weight or tech should be equally viable. But PGI obviously thinks weight and tech do matter, otberwise someone needs to explain why we have drop deck limitations in cw. But thats here nor there. Do you really think a 50 ton clan mech ought to be balanced relative to a 70 ton IS mech? I think it ought to be 50 to 50 and 70 to 70. But that's crazy talk I know.

Do you see how you're contradicting yourself here? You think that mechs should be equally viable regardless of weight and tech but at the same time a 50t clan mech shouldn't be balanced compared to a 70t IS mech...

Posted Image

Edited by ForceUser, 11 October 2017 - 12:49 PM.


#149 Jay Leon Hart

    Member

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

Posted 11 October 2017 - 12:57 PM

View PostForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Do you see how you're contradicting yourself here? You think that mechs should be equally viable regardless of weight and tech but at the same time a 50t clan mech shouldn't be balanced compared to a 70t IS mech...

So you'd be OK with an IS 20 tonner that could magically run dual Gauss + lasers as well as the Deathstrike?

Everything being viable != Everything being comparable in firepower

#150 Bud Crue

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 9,943 posts
  • LocationOn the farm in central Minnesota

Posted 11 October 2017 - 01:12 PM

View PostForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Do you see how you're contradicting yourself here? You think that mechs should be equally viable regardless of weight and tech but at the same time a 50t clan mech shouldn't be balanced compared to a 70t IS mech...

Posted Image

Now I realkt am confused...i thought we were talking about tech balance, and you were of the position that it was "fine". There is nothing "fine" about one side having a clear 20 ton advantage in order to bring the same firepower in a game where like it or not tonnage does matter.

#151 ForceUser

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 894 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 01:19 PM

View PostJay Leon Hart, on 11 October 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

So you'd be OK with an IS 20 tonner that could magically run dual Gauss + lasers as well as the Deathstrike?

Everything being viable != Everything being comparable in firepower

When people straight up start making stuff up it's time to leave, it's no longer a discussion, it's make believe fairyland. Not interested in defending things I never said nor implied.

#152 Jay Leon Hart

    Member

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

Posted 11 October 2017 - 01:24 PM

View PostForceUser, on 11 October 2017 - 01:19 PM, said:

When people straight up start making stuff up it's time to leave, it's no longer a discussion, it's make believe fairyland. Not interested in defending things I never said nor implied.

I'm merely showing how "This 50 ton 'mech and this 70 ton 'mech can use the same loadout, therefore balance is fine" can be taken to the extreme to show how bad of an argument that is.

#153 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 11 October 2017 - 01:28 PM

Thanks for posting the link, OP! Sorry if I missed it, because I only skimmed through the 8 pages of this thread, but I didn't see anyone pointing out that Russ was just blatantly over-selling aspects of MW5, without being corrected by the person who wrote the article.

And please do correct me if I'm wrong. But Russ said that MW5 was the first time Battletech fans ever got to see a dropship land, and was the first Mechwarrior game to feature destructible terrain. Well, am I going senile, or are both of those statements false? Maybe it was the first time we got to see that particular type of dropship land. But I'm quite sure we've seen dropships in several Mechwarrior games. I don't recall if they actually landed as far back as MW2, but they definitely dropped down to low altitude and dropped mechs. And MW2 also featured destructible terrain, as did... every Mechwarrior game since MW2.

Some people say "Well, he's just trying to sell the game", but I think that's a stupid argument. Not every developer says stuff like this. In previous Town Hall meetings, Russ has demonstrated what is either very poor memory or very selective memory, depending on how you spin it. When he says stuff like this, it's just one of the reasons why the guy has very low credibility, in my view.

I still don't have a lot of confidence in MW5, but I hope it turns out well. And I hope they keep their "promise" of making it an offline single player game. The biggest challenge is naturally the overarching game mechanics like contracts, free market, insterstellar travel, recruiting, maintenance and repair, etc. I'm going to need some solid information and video of that part of the game before I have any confidence at all.

To be honest, none of the screenshots in this article looked more impressive than what we already saw in the teaser gameplay video, or showed us anything new, from what I can tell. Well, maybe the helicopter. <shrug>

EDIT: Also, I am disappointed by the poor argument that "Allowing players to customize mechs would defeat the free market. Why buy a JR7-F if you can just upgrade the JR7-D?" It's nonsensical. It depends entirely on the upgrade cost. It's almost like saying "Why order a new laptop when you can just upgrade your old laptop?". Well, because in many cases, it's a lot cheaper to just buy a new one. Laptop computers (like mechs) aren't really made so you can easily upgrade every individual component. It's really expensive to make a laptop computer last 30 years just by gradually upgrading it. Being able to upgrade a laptop doesn't defeat the free market of laptop computers.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 11 October 2017 - 07:01 PM.


#154 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,385 posts

Posted 11 October 2017 - 02:53 PM

There were Dropships in MW2 Mercs and they were destructible also some target Buildings were destructible.
Afair the Dropships would start if you did not make the Mission in time but i am not sure.

#155 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 11 October 2017 - 03:05 PM

View PostThorqemada, on 11 October 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

There were Dropships in MW2 Mercs and they were destructible also some target Buildings were destructible.
Afair the Dropships would start if you did not make the Mission in time but i am not sure.

Unless I am mistaken, we also had destructible dropships that could take off and land in Mechwarrior 4 as well. Not sure about MW3, but both MW3 and MW4 definitely had destructible buildings and other terrain. Of all the things to focus on, it seems dumb to make a big deal about this. It just brings attention to the fact that MWO was kind of unique in its lack of destructible terrain, both as a modern FPS and as a Mechwarrior game.

#156 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 11 October 2017 - 04:41 PM

Maybe MechWarrior 5 will be the best MechWarrior yet.

#157 CMDR Sunset Shimmer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,341 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 14 October 2017 - 04:59 PM

View PostDavegt27, on 09 October 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

another problem

from the article



you want a little bit of logistics (where you go, how you get there, how many Mechs to take)
bullets is to much

you don't want a management nightmare


Sure you do, that's what Battletech by HBS is doing, and frankly, that's what I want out of Mechwarrior too.

View PostAlistair Winter, on 11 October 2017 - 03:05 PM, said:

Unless I am mistaken, we also had destructible dropships that could take off and land in Mechwarrior 4 as well. Not sure about MW3, but both MW3 and MW4 definitely had destructible buildings and other terrain. Of all the things to focus on, it seems dumb to make a big deal about this. It just brings attention to the fact that MWO was kind of unique in its lack of destructible terrain, both as a modern FPS and as a Mechwarrior game.


Considering MWO DOESN'T have that, nor does MWLL... yeah, it's worth while to make a big deal of it, especially considering the potential FIDELITY of said destruction.

#158 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 14 October 2017 - 11:03 PM

View PostCMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 14 October 2017 - 04:59 PM, said:

Considering MWO DOESN'T have that, nor does MWLL... yeah, it's worth while to make a big deal of it, especially considering the potential FIDELITY of said destruction.

MW:LL? The fan-created mod? What an odd point to make. Usually, when a developer makes claims like "This is the first game to ever feature X", people don't actually count fan-made mods.

I'm fine with making a big deal about it. If he'd said "We're going to have dropships and destructible terrain, and it looks better than in any previous Mechwarrior title", then I'd have no problem with it. I don't have a problem with developers and other private companies hyping their product by making subjective statements. I just have a problem with them saying things that are objectively not true. People have different views about the importance of speaking truthfully though, especially in business.





8 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 8 guests, 0 anonymous users