163 replies to this topic

[The Lighthouse]

Bud Crue, on 10 December 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

This is apparently the future MWO development as far as I can tell from the Mechcon stream:

A total lack of any further effort in CW. None.
A total absence of any effort at fixing the state of weapons balance, variant and chassis balance, tech balance or otherwise.
Solaris being 1v1 and 2v2 with cosmetics.
A new map and of course a new mech.
And of course pre-mechcon statement that they intend to bring back 8v8 (because the population to support 12v12 is quickly becoming non-viable (this part being unstated)).

That is apparently the extent of PGI's MWO planned development.

This isn't your Mechwarrior game. This isn't even PGI's advertised "Mech-based shooter set in the rich Battlech Universe". Nope, MWO is well on its way to being the e-sport Russ has always wanted and by his own, repeated, statements (in print) it has always only existed to get MW5 made; and since that goal is nearly achieved, PGI apparently is not really that interested in developing it in any substantive manner further.

Is that worth throwing money at?
Beats me, but I am such a mechporn addict, I probably will.

Wait, did they actually say this again?

...

This game is definitely going into the trash can. PGI will probably lose far more players from this decision than gaining any players from implementing Solaris.

[Wolfways]

Icebergdx, on 10 December 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

The suggestion to fix the imbalance in CW was made MANY times by lore purests LIKE ME, who have played the board game, and read the books, and the answer was in front of them the entire time, but they REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT!

Repeatedly, it is mentioned, and has been playtested in the board game that ON AVERAGE, the advantage between a CLAN mech unit and an IS mech unit is 2 to 2.5 IS mechs per clan mech. Or put another way, in combat, a properly trained and integrated Clan star (5 mechs) is the combat equivalent to a IS Mech Company (3 lances, or 12 Mechs). And even the, often the Clan commander would bid lower than that, but for arguments sake, lets stay with those numbers. To even acknowledge that a 12 - 5 battle might be a little much, most people suggested even going to a 12-10 ration, so 1 Binary (2 stars - 10 mechs total) of clan mechs facing a company (3 lances - 12 mechs total) would be reaonable, especially with a small tonage difference (300 tons per individual grouping, so for the IS 300 tons per lance (average 75 tons a mech), for the clans 300 tons per star. (Average 60 tons a mech))

These ideas were NEVER EVEN GIVEN THE TIME OF DAY, even though they came from some of the most faithful of the Battletech fans. The LONG TIME PLAYERS WHO HAD PLAYED MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THE GAME.

So don't give me that crap about purists whining. We TRIED to get them to listen, but PGI, and SPECIFICLLY RUSS, stuck his thumbs in his hears, and his middle fingers up at those of us who had the most knowledge about how to balance the game. The long time, purist fans, who were telling him how it SHOULD work. But people like me, who have been playing the game in some form or another, for over 30 years, don't know a damn thing, according to Russ. And he makes us - World of Tanks on two legs. Oh....Yay...NOT!

As far as I remember before the clan nerfs 12IS vs. 10clan was tried by some units and clan lost every time.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Icebergdx, on 10 December 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

The suggestion to fix the imbalance in CW was made MANY times by lore purests LIKE ME, who have played the board game, and read the books, and the answer was in front of them the entire time, but they REFUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT!

Repeatedly, it is mentioned, and has been playtested in the board game that ON AVERAGE, the advantage between a CLAN mech unit and an IS mech unit is 2 to 2.5 IS mechs per clan mech. Or put another way, in combat, a properly trained and integrated Clan star (5 mechs) is the combat equivalent to a IS Mech Company (3 lances, or 12 Mechs). And even the, often the Clan commander would bid lower than that, but for arguments sake, lets stay with those numbers. To even acknowledge that a 12 - 5 battle might be a little much, most people suggested even going to a 12-10 ration, so 1 Binary (2 stars - 10 mechs total) of clan mechs facing a company (3 lances - 12 mechs total) would be reaonable, especially with a small tonage difference (300 tons per individual grouping, so for the IS 300 tons per lance (average 75 tons a mech), for the clans 300 tons per star. (Average 60 tons a mech))

These ideas were NEVER EVEN GIVEN THE TIME OF DAY, even though they came from some of the most faithful of the Battletech fans. The LONG TIME PLAYERS WHO HAD PLAYED MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THE GAME.

So don't give me that crap about purists whining. We TRIED to get them to listen, but PGI, and SPECIFICLLY RUSS, stuck his thumbs in his hears, and his middle fingers up at those of us who had the most knowledge about how to balance the game. The long time, purist fans, who were telling him how it SHOULD work. But people like me, who have been playing the game in some form or another, for over 30 years, don't know a damn thing, according to Russ. And he makes us - World of Tanks on two legs. Oh....Yay...NOT!

Well that's great, but please tell us how to populate a side that will be getting routinely slaughtered in the hopes that enough damage was done against their opponent that someone on their team can kill them before they lose. No one wants to be cannon fodder. Yah it would be great to be the IS player that finally lands a kill against a Clan player, but not so great for your 2 or so buddies that got wasted to let you do it, and certainly not so great when you are the one biting the dust. 1vs1 balance may be impossible, but not so impossible as creating a game where one side is purposely handicapped and expecting players to choose it.

And how would a clan commander bid on anything? Unless in an organized group mode, their would be NO commander. Also, in order for him to bid, he would have to now exactly what his opponent is bringing, would the IS side want their entire lineup available to the clan player before the match? And how long are you willing to wait for a match while clanners figure out what the heck they are brining? And what would they bid away, if its always 10vs12 (or whatever number is required), they keep the same number of mechs, do they just drop weight classes? Your suggestion would create far more problems then it would fix.

[Khobai]

Bud Crue, on 10 December 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

And of course pre-mechcon statement that they intend to bring back 8v8 (because the population to support 12v12 is quickly becoming non-viable (this part being unstated)).

PGI should at least make the smaller maps 8v8, for example: canyon, caustic, mining collective, hpg, and viridian bog

those maps are all way too small for 12v12.

Quote

And how would a clan commander bid on anything?

bidding couldve been encouraged on an individual basis

since each clan player gets 4 mechs in FW

the lower the dropdeck weight the bigger the bonus reward

there should be a low drop weight commendation like in mech commander where you get rewarded for dropping with less tonnage than the mission allows.

as for 10v12, I dont believe PGI ever seriously attempted it... I dont recall ever seeing it on the test server. would it have been a bad idea? I dont know... but I do know ISvsClan still isnt balanced 3 years later.

Edited by Khobai, 11 December 2017 - 12:59 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

DjPush, on 10 December 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

I missed a bit of MechCon on twitch so, please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, you're wrong.

This exact thread title and statement has shown up before. Is there a reason it's being repeated again?

[davoodoo]

Wolfways, on 10 December 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

As far as I remember before the clan nerfs 12IS vs. 10clan was tried by some units and clan lost every time.

Wasnt there but seriously wouldnt be surprised, clan tech is better but not that much and if you take out 2 heavy mechs out of their team its really hard to keep up and every mistake will be punished even more.

[Sigmar Sich]

Quote

Sooo... No Real Reason To Keep Dumping Money Into This Game?

Seems so.
Thing is, the game is not in pre-flourish state, as some people hope for. It is now as good as PGI can make it. So it depends on is it good enough for you personally. Basically it is "is the glass half-full or half-empty" debate.
As for me, i'll keep playing from time to time. Will definitely try Solaris as Urbie purist (what can possibly go wrong?). But i no longer believe in brighter future for MWO.

P.S. I'm excited about HBS BT. About MW5 too, but i'm equally afraid for this one.
P.S. If Battletech will be great again, MWO and PGI should be remembered with kindness.

[thievingmagpi]

I was gonna drop $30 for the MC / heroes sale but the webpage was bugged would've had enough for scorch/grinner/bh and black widow.

I'm kinda mad about that tbh

[MischiefSC]

The Lighthouse, on 10 December 2017 - 10:01 PM, said:

Wait, did they actually say this again?

...

This game is definitely going into the trash can. PGI will probably lose far more players from this decision than gaining any players from implementing Solaris.

It won't 'gain' player from Solaris for more than a week or so, when they find out what 1 v 1 plays like. People were excited for Long Tom too - until they played with it.

8 v 8 with a better matchmaker would be a big improvement in matchmaking. Gameplay experience will depend on player preference, not sure it'll lose many people though. Matches built faster and with tighter skill grouping isn't a bad thing.

[Mystere]

Mole, on 10 December 2017 - 01:02 PM, said:

How many years have we been begging for Solaris and now that they are giving it to us we are complaining?

What makes you so sure the people who begged for Solaris are the same ones complaining now?

JC Daxion, on 10 December 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

The game they said they would build was basically a arena shooter..

Really?

[Mystere]

MischiefSC, on 10 December 2017 - 08:32 PM, said:

I still want 1 v 1 in though, because I'm laughing my *** off as I think of how utterly and completely 90% of this games population is going to get crushed and humiliated and how absolutely crystal clear it's going to be that they are getting carried by their pug teams, not kept back and how their 'I don't do meta' builds are such utter, total and completely ****.

Well, I do hope people have been keeping notes on who have been the loudest in complaining about their alleged "potato" teammates costing them victories.

I have. <maniacal >

UnofficialOperator, on 10 December 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

Once 1v1 starts, everyone will notice how big a part ping actually plays in this game. Those above 250 ping will notice how the opponent always gets the drop on them.

Is this the best time to take up residence in Montreal?

Wolfways, on 10 December 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

As far as I remember before the clan nerfs 12IS vs. 10clan was tried by some units and clan lost every time.

Shh! That's an inconvenient truth!

[Koniving]

JC Daxion, on 10 December 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

The game they said they would build was basically a arena shooter.. and that is basically what we got.

To summarize what Mystere pointed out as a counter argument:

Skipping the pilot selection debacle.
Bounty Hunting. (Take up a contract or bounty, travel across the map to find where that player is and then engage him one on one to try and get that bounty).
Player created missions / contracts.
LOGISTICS (Supply management, factory capturing/defense, map travel, reinforcements, setting up Garrisons).
I could probably stop right there, but it actually keeps going...and going...and going...

Base building...

[Koniving]

Note by travel and map, I mean the Inner Sphere map, jumping from planet to planet to get supplies from point A to point B. Intercepting supplies before they reach a major or minor conflict. Intercepting a specific player on a planet before they move off to god knows where. Etc.

And then listen to the pilot thing, and you'll hear how mercs don't normally participate in the major faction conflicts unless hired to do so, so the merc stacking for X side crap we have...never would have happened as aside from when they are hired, mercs would be fighting smaller conflicts with each other over periphery territory.

Edited by Koniving, 11 December 2017 - 12:07 PM.

[Bud Crue]

MischiefSC, on 11 December 2017 - 11:06 AM, said:

It won't 'gain' player from Solaris for more than a week or so, when they find out what 1 v 1 plays like. People were excited for Long Tom too - until they played with it.

8 v 8 with a better matchmaker would be a big improvement in matchmaking. Gameplay experience will depend on player preference, not sure it'll lose many people though. Matches built faster and with tighter skill grouping isn't a bad thing.

I suspect Solaris is going to be EXACTLY like long tom: A feature lots of folks wanted and begged for based on an expectation of TT or past game experience, only to have the PGI/Russ version of that brought to life -and then watch with dismay as their hopes and dreams of immersive game play vaporize in a mushroom-like cloud. Solaris is going to be a repeat of that experience. What we are getting is NOT the MW4 Solaris. But I expect a lot of folks who aren’t paying attention to mechcon and the other little details (pardon) being bandied about are going to be just as shocked and dismayed by the PGI version of Solaris as they were by the PGI version of Long Tom. I hope the results this time won’t be as damaging. CW never recovered, and I suspect it never will. Hopefully the inevitable Solaris disappointment won’t take what’s left of the game with it.

[Khobai]

people wanted npc vehicle/turret longtoms that could be destroyed. or mech mounted longtoms that actually cost tonnage and crit slots. and required manual aiming.

they didnt want an offboard super artillery that one shots random enemy mechs with absolutely no way to stop it.

its pgi's implementation that was bad.


its the same thing with solaris... there should be free for all and team free for all. having 1v1 for the tryhards is fine but not having free for all for everyone else is bad implementation. not everyone is into epeen measuring or cares about personal stats, and thats the type of player 1v1 is for. And those players are like less than 1% of the playerbase. The way solaris is being implemented is completely out of touch with most players of the game.

most people just wanna play for fun.

Quote

LOGISTICS (Supply management, factory capturing/defense, map travel, reinforcements, setting up Garrisons).

I could probably stop right there, but it actually keeps going...and going...and going...

yeah the lack of logistics in CW was a major letdown

loyalist units should be able to spend cbills from their coffers to shore up the defenses of faction controlled planets (buying turrets, npc vehicles, various strategic assets like a repair bay/ammo dump, etc...)

while mercs should be able to spend cbills from their coffers to shore up the defense of their privately owned periphery planets. (Set aside a couple planets in the periphery for merc units to fight over ownership of)

also each faction planet should provide bonuses to every loyalist. and each periphery planet should provide bonuses to the merc unit that owns it. the bonus the planet provides should also be related to the type of gamemode you have to play to capture/defend that planet. so like if the planet has a mech factory you should have to capture/defend a mech factory.

Edited by Khobai, 11 December 2017 - 12:40 PM.

[TLBFestus]

Khobai, on 11 December 2017 - 12:39 AM, said:

as for 10v12, I dont believe PGI ever seriously attempted it... I dont recall ever seeing it on the test server. would it have been a bad idea? I dont know... but I do know ISvsClan still isnt balanced 3 years later.

Back when 10v12 was being batted around by the community, Russ or someone else at PGI said that it wasn't possible, that for some reason unknown to us, that the match-maker could not handle assymetric numbers like that.

No idea why.......but like many of PGIs explanations, it's a mystery.

Edited by TLBFestus, 11 December 2017 - 01:46 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Back when 10v12 was being batted around by the community, Russ or someone else at PGI said that it wasn't possible, that for some reason unknown to us, that the match-maker could not handle assymetric numbers like that.

but the matchmaker doesnt work with symmetrical teams.

[Mole]

Obviously 8v8 is the answer to everything. We tried that once before and it worked so well that we stopped doing it.

[Khobai]

Quote

Obviously 8v8 is the answer to everything. We tried that once before and it worked so well that we stopped doing it.

PGI stopped doing it because they figured they could save money by growing 24 potatos in the same space it previously took to grow 16 potatos. But they didnt care about the health of the potatos lol.


But like I said before, at least five of the maps should go back to being 8v8 (canyon, caustic, mining, hpg, and bog). Those maps are too small for 12v12.

And crimson straits, river city, rubellite, and tourmaline are all borderline. They could go either way. They should probably be 8v8 but if they stay 12v12 its not a big deal.

But all the bigger maps like terra therma, alpine, polar highlands, forest colony, frozen city, grim plexus, etc... are fine for 12v12.

forest colony does need a rework though, because its a HUGE map, but only a small part of it gets played on. They need to get rid of that one mountain ridge in the center to open the center of the map up more. And add more cover on the water side so people arnt as afraid to go in the water. Theres no point to having a huge map if the terrain always funnels everyone to the same grid square every single game. It needs more options.

Edited by Khobai, 11 December 2017 - 12:57 PM.

[Asym]

Bud Crue, on 11 December 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

I suspect Solaris is going to be EXACTLY like long tom: A feature lots of folks wanted and begged for based on an expectation of TT or past game experience, only to have the PGI/Russ version of that brought to life -and then watch with dismay as their hopes and dreams of immersive game play vaporize in a mushroom-like cloud. Solaris is going to be a repeat of that experience. What we are getting is NOT the MW4 Solaris. But I expect a lot of folks who aren’t paying attention to mechcon and the other little details (pardon) being bandied about are going to be just as shocked and dismayed by the PGI version of Solaris as they were by the PGI version of Long Tom. I hope the results this time won’t be as damaging. CW never recovered, and I suspect it never will. Hopefully the inevitable Solaris disappointment won’t take what’s left of the game with it.

BC, I can't see a large part of the average player population lasting more than a few weeks at best... There isn't going to be anyway PGI can "balance" the Solaris arena because there is so very little valid data.... By person, by class, by type, by PSR, by tier and by "anything" is so skewed that if I went 1x1 against say you, I'd get massacred over and over again. Large numbers of people left because of seal clubbing and farming..... How in the world will 1x1 or 2x2 be any smarter or any better than what we see in Stomps everywhere? There are no control features that will work....MWO history has said that.

So, what now? There will be nothing left for us to do? No FP. No QP worth a crap. We're not comp........ We won't be farmed......ergo, we won't be here... (sigh).

Edited by Asym, 11 December 2017 - 12:57 PM.