1125 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

The community doesn't exactly speak with a single united voice. Rather, it screams out "left" "right" "stop" "faster" all at the same time...

[InvictusLee]

Nightbird, on 21 February 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

The community doesn't exactly speak with a single united voice. Rather, it screams out "left" "right" "stop" "faster" all at the same time...

that sounds terrible lol.

[justcallme A S H]

Morte Nilsum, on 20 February 2018 - 02:46 PM, said:

That's ok. They are just abstract examples to show the vast difference in power between a clan laser vomit and a IS laser vomit build, ton for ton, damage for damage. Of course there are better builds to play with, but these abstract examples line up perfectly point for point.

I have no problem with clan lasers being slightly better than IS lasers, but atm clan lasers are better by a landslide. The clan build has vastly faster speed, vastly better heat dissipation, and superior ton and crit slot cost in comparison to the IS build.

The example shows what the IS build has to do to get the same amount of laser vomit damage as the clan build.

Sorry to say, they don't show anything at all. You've chosen a severly tonnage locked Clan mech with a rubbish build to a IS Mech that is more customised with again a silly build.

All they are is examples of how little you understand about MWO. If you want to compare the builds, do it properly.

Linebacker / T-Bolt

Linebacker wins on outright firepower / speed / cooling and loses to the T-Bolt in damage spreading / duration / better range.

So it's actually not that uneven IMO for the example you have used.

If you used a PROPER example like a EBJ/HBR then you see the balance is much more in favour of the Clan laser vom, but at this point you also lose a LOT of survivabilty because HBR/EBJ do not have defensive quirks.

But it's always been the case of you go "heavier" when comparing IS to Clan. If you go to 70-75T IS mechs vs the 65T Clan mechs then it's actually pretty even with laser vom right now in that skirmish sector due to many factors I don't think you are capable of comprehending yet.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 21 February 2018 - 07:57 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

November11th, on 21 February 2018 - 07:40 PM, said:

We'll figure it out.

You think you have the ability to get Paul fired.

That's nice. Wrong, but nice. Unless you know about a major felony we don't, he's the lead designer of the game and won't vanish unless the game does.

[LowSubmarino]

Tarogato, on 07 February 2018 - 05:16 PM, said:

Clarification: we do not intend to have this revised in time for Paul's podcast. Just so you know. We're going to take as much as one week to soak in the feedback, and then we'll post a revised version.

---

By now you’ve probably heard about MechTheDane’s video, “Unfunning of MWO”. If you haven’t, go check it out now because it has been the centerpiece of a large community push over the past week to incite positive changes in MWO.

But Dane isn’t the only that was fired up after RJBass' interview with Chris Lowrey and wanted to “get something going.” Community member Bear Claw decided to pull together a crew of players to draft up a list of weapon balance changes to improve the game and have them forwarded to PGI. This has already been cleared with Paul Inouye at PGI. I will list who all is involved at the end of this post.



SO WHAT IS GOING ON?

We have drafted up weapon balance changes to recommend directly to PGI. You can read them here on the follow document, or if you like you can directly peruse our massive spreadsheet:

- Full list of changes
- Spreadsheet form for nerds

WE WANT YOUR FEEDBACK. We have discussed every single weapon in the game, and almost every weapon has been modified in some way or another through our combined efforts. Not every change is going to make the cut and be forwarded to PGI. We want to hear what YOU ALL have to say, make modifications to our proposal, and cut down and simplify where necessary. So please, if weapon balance is important to you, take the time to dig in and offer your opinions.

It’s important that we as a community all get on the same page, and this can be our jumping point. If we all poll our effort together, we can whittle our proposal down to something we can all agree on. We're here to work together and focus our feedback so that we can help PGI succeed and make this game more fun for everybody. If we can't agree on what we want, how do we expect PGI to give us what we're asking for? If this effort is successful, we can hope to maintain an open dialogue with PGI in improving topics beyond just weapon balancing.




And do remember that this is concerning weapon balance only, which is only a single slice of the pie. There are other things that should probably be addressed by PGI:

- Mech quirks
- Mech mobility
- Overbearing consumables
- Skill Tree as a whole (ie., are enough people unhappy to justify significant changes?)
- New player experience (hey, it’s still not good)
- Matchmaking (the PSR system is fundamentally broken as it stands)

Any of the above could be topics for a dedicated community effort to provide direct feedback to PGI on how they should be handled. But for now, ONE THING AT A TIME. First thing is weapon balance only.
So on that topic, FLY MY PRETTIES. LET LOOSE YOUR FEEDBACK.

---

Here are the people who were involved with drafting these balance changes and will be reviewing your feedback:

Major contributions from:
- Navid A1
- Metachanic
- Tarogato

Additional input from:
- Bows3r
- Fragosaurus Rex
- Bear Claw

I support those changes.

Light gauss is useless, racs are just bad in their current state and honestly i cant even remember when I last saw them, that alone should be another indicator that they suck. And the other ideas are good too.

[Belkor]

An ELO based matchmaking system is sorely needed even if it increases queue time similar to League of Legends (long queue times for high elo players). NGNGtv's stream today highlighted how unfun it is to play in the group queue. You go up against stacked teams full of comp players who literally farm the opposing team without dropping any matches the entire day. Due to the limited playerbase and how many avoid the group queue, you often get these same comp players over and over. This means you can't group with friends at all in MWO unless you want to get farmed by comp teams. Getting farmed over and over is not fun. I suspect this is one of the bigger factor that has resulted in a declining playerbase for MWO.

Edited by Belkor, 22 February 2018 - 01:03 AM.

[Dogstar]

Belkor, on 22 February 2018 - 12:57 AM, said:

long queue times for high elo players

One of the reasons we will never get skill based matchmaking is that the majority of 'skilled players' don't want even matches, they're very happy sealclubbing everyone that isn't as good as them. There are very few highly skilled players that want even matches.

That's the nature of F2P online PVP games - _you_ are the content

and a lot of the time being 'content' means being a cheap AI target for a skilled player

That's why things will never change in this sort of game, lazy designers and developers throw together a system that's 'minimally viable' and then milk the 'content' for as long as they can get away with it.

[LowSubmarino]

Belkor, on 22 February 2018 - 12:57 AM, said:

An ELO based matchmaking system is sorely needed even if it increases queue time similar to League of Legends (long queue times for high elo players). NGNGtv's stream today highlighted how unfun it is to play in the group queue. You go up against stacked teams full of comp players who literally farm the opposing team without dropping any matches the entire day. Due to the limited playerbase and how many avoid the group queue, you often get these same comp players over and over. This means you can't group with friends at all in MWO unless you want to get farmed by comp teams. Getting farmed over and over is not fun. I suspect this is one of the bigger factor that has resulted in a declining playerbase for MWO.

That is true.

I didnt even know it was that bad in group queue, cause I rarely played it. Mostly playing alone.

But what you just mentioned is naturally so frustrating for those getting massacred and farmed, that most players will not enjoy that for long.

Bad matchmaking is very bad for a game cause it destroys the fun. I dont even enjoy it when my team stomps the other team. Theres no really exciting and challenging encounters. You kill so many completly split, single mechs that are obviously not very long/experienced players and they dont understand the gameplay yet and they dont even know they are being shot in the back.

Its not satisfying, for neither side.

A game must be fun for different kind of players.

I mean, its already pretty bad in QP. It its even worse in group queue than Im surprised ppl actually play that.

If I would be on the loosing side too often, cause we just get masscared over and over again with no chance...damn. I would stop playing completly. And those very good teams wouldnt even find games anymore as well. It kills the game basically.

They neglected that aspect, either inoring how bad it is for the game and the player population or they dont know how to make a better match maker.

But that is not a very smart choice whatsoever.

[Khobai]

Quote

I mean, its already pretty bad in QP. It its even worse in group queue than Im surprised ppl actually play that.

its worse still in faction play because pugs and premades arnt even in separate queues

[Sereglach]

Khobai, on 22 February 2018 - 01:59 AM, said:

its worse still in faction play because pugs and premades arnt even in separate queues

Don't forget that when they "tried" separating the queues it was set up for failure, because all you had for the "solo queue" were loyalist and lone wolf "career paths". That, in turn, meant that half the solo queue could only queue up for local faction battles (we didn't have only Clan vs. IS "buckets" yet) and the other half couldn't join the queue through anything other than an urgent call to arms. Therefore solo players went from being pug-stomped to just not having any matches at all.

One of the first things they need to do, in order to allow separate FP queues, is to allow solo players to take the Mercenary career path. However, PGI won't do it because they already "tried" separate queues.

Edited by Sereglach, 22 February 2018 - 02:37 PM.

[Tarogato]

Asym, on 07 February 2018 - 09:21 PM, said:

OP. No. you do not represent "us". You and the crew you invited aren't "us". Not even close. Do not recommend anything in our name because you Do Not Represent "us" at all.

Good try but you'll never find "balance" because balance isn't about what MW is about. It's about struggle between two completely different cultures fighting over the same space. It's the "Cold War" storyline and balance has nothing to do with it because there wasn't balance in the first place. Good grief. What we should be asking PGI to do is de-nerf everything and start over. Make all weapons as deadly as they were designed to be and call it a day....

No.

Ummm, a lot of what we're trying to do is exactly what you ask for, de-nerfing everything.
Also, you think the game should be imbalanced because it has some semblance of a storyline? It's a PvP multiplayer shooter, balance is expected from most people (dare i say, virtually everyone).
And I might note, not a *single* person hit "like" on your comment as to show they agree with you. While 23 people mashed the "like" button on the first person who replied to you in dissent.

Asym, on 08 February 2018 - 06:50 AM, said:

No. I won't stay quiet because this is the right attempt done the wrong way.... Top down never works in change management because all business comes down to culture.... Culture drives innovation up as it struggles against change: it's called adaptive friction - but, that paper hasn't been published yet....

[...]

Anyone I know hasn't been contacted? That's about a 100 players now. Of course, we aren't "dedicated" enough because we'd represent an alternative view: so, Bombast, have at it lad and good luck with Solaris. Us "less than decicated" and, if I would guess, a Freudian slip on your part because you really wanted to say "potato", don't count, well, that's a shame because a majority of players can't all be elite and competition players....

This is why I wanted public feedback. So that people such as yourself would have a chance to point out which changes you might think are bad so they can be discussed.

So far you have made three comments in this thread. Not a single one of them contained actual feedback. Which weapon changes do you disagree with? Why?

For the record, we want the same thing as you do. We want a fun game where many different playstyles are viable and there are no weapons that are either useless or overpowered. That's the goal here.

[The6thMessenger]

I think the biggest problem why PGI couldn't take this seriously is that it's basically just buffs. It's completely self-serving and stuff.

Tarogato, on 23 February 2018 - 01:41 AM, said:

For the record, we want the same thing as you do. We want a fun game where many different playstyles are viable and there are no weapons that are either useless or overpowered. That's the goal here.

I have yet to see more buffs to the RAC. I mean RAC2 at the current change is still useless.

[Bud Crue]

The6thMessenger, on 23 February 2018 - 02:30 AM, said:

I think the biggest problem why PGI couldn't take this seriously is that it's basically just buffs. It's completely self-serving and stuff.



I have yet to see more buffs to the RAC. I mean RAC2 at the current change is still useless.

If Paul's honest to goodness primary goal of "balance" is to increase TTK over all other concerns, then this effort was DOA from the get go. The effort was about making weapons more fun and in many cases that means buffing them. Reducing some aspect of performance on nearly all of them, so as to increase TTK (see last 8 months of balance passes (i.e. nerfs) is the opposite of fun.

[Dago Red]

Bud Crue, on 23 February 2018 - 02:38 AM, said:

If Paul's honest to goodness primary goal of "balance" is to increase TTK over all other concerns, then this effort was DOA from the get go. The effort was about making weapons more fun and in many cases that means buffing them. Reducing some aspect of performance on nearly all of them, so as to increase TTK (see last 8 months of balance passes (i.e. nerfs) is the opposite of fun.

I disagree that it has to not be fun but the half assed implementation gets in the way.

If your plan is to take everything down a level then leaving several tall daisies for 6 months is just going to shoot that plan in the foot.

[JohnnyWayne]

How about they make weapons ******* fun and increase armor and internals at the same time.It is better than ruining the whole game.

Killing off mobility to decrease the ability to spread damage and then killing the wepaons to create an infinite stare down. Fun times.

And here again, not to forget that some mechs (and variants) died together with their weapons being changed. Im looking at you ACH and MADIIC.

Or the moblilty got ****** up. I'm looking at you ACH, HBKIIC, TBR, MADIIC, Atlas, DWF, who did I miss?

The game getting slower by increasing cooldowns, and decreasing mobility is sure as hell not fun.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 23 February 2018 - 04:05 AM.

[Mystere]

Sereglach, on 22 February 2018 - 02:35 PM, said:

Don't forget that when they "tried" separating the queues it was set up for failure, because all you had for the "solo queue" were loyalist and lone wolf "career paths". That, in turn, meant that half the solo queue could only queue up for local faction battles (we didn't have only Clan vs. IS "buckets" yet) and the other half couldn't join the queue through anything other than an urgent call to arms. Therefore solo players went from being pug-stomped to just not having any matches at all.

One of the first things they need to do, in order to allow separate FP queues, is to allow solo players to take the Mercenary career path. However, PGI won't do it because they already "tried" separate queues.

Well, also do not forget that other solo-only players deliberately ignored the solo queue by creating one-person units, and we were legion!

Edited by Mystere, 23 February 2018 - 04:05 AM.

[Tarogato]

The6thMessenger, on 23 February 2018 - 02:30 AM, said:

I think the biggest problem why PGI couldn't take this seriously is that it's basically just buffs. It's completely self-serving and stuff.

I have yet to see more buffs to the RAC. I mean RAC2 at the current change is still useless.

We still have a 25% damage buff for RAC2s.
And a 50% reduction to the horrendous artificial spread that both RACs have. Initially we had removed the spread entirely, but some people commented that pinpoint RACs could be overpowered, so we stepped it back a little bit.

Also lol @ commenting about proposal not able to be taken seriously because it's all buffs... and then asking for more buffs.

Bud Crue, on 23 February 2018 - 02:38 AM, said:

If Paul's honest to goodness primary goal of "balance" is to increase TTK over all other concerns, then this effort was DOA from the get go. The effort was about making weapons more fun and in many cases that means buffing them. Reducing some aspect of performance on nearly all of them, so as to increase TTK (see last 8 months of balance passes (i.e. nerfs) is the opposite of fun.

What we have to get through to Paul is that TTK is determined by the most effective weapons being fielded with regularity. If laservomit is the fastest killing weapon(s) right now (generally), overall TTK will not go down when alternatives to it are buffed. Buffing a small laser or RAC2 doesn't cause laservomit to kill mechs faster. To achieve overall faster TTK, you would have to buff other weapons so much to the point that they are BETTER at killing mechs than laservomit currently is. But until that point, you're not really reducing overall TTK, you're just increasing the variety of weapons that can achieve the present TTK.

You don't die faster or more. But you die in a greater variety of manners.

[Peter2k]

Sereglach, on 22 February 2018 - 02:35 PM, said:

Don't forget that when they "tried" separating the queues it was set up for failure, because all you had for the "solo queue" were loyalist and lone wolf "career paths". That, in turn, meant that half the solo queue could only queue up for local faction battles (we didn't have only Clan vs. IS "buckets" yet) and the other half couldn't join the queue through anything other than an urgent call to arms. Therefore solo players went from being pug-stomped to just not having any matches at all.

One of the first things they need to do, in order to allow separate FP queues, is to allow solo players to take the Mercenary career path. However, PGI won't do it because they already "tried" separate queues.

Well like so many PGI implementations of things the community asked for was terribly executed/implemented
The basic idea is sound

Mystere, on 23 February 2018 - 04:01 AM, said:

Well, also do not forget that other solo-only players deliberately ignored the solo queue by creating one-person units, and we were legion!

Exactly
I'm still in a one man group, how else could I choose for which side and where to fight?

The idea of separate groups isn't bad per sé, but PGI always has a way of implementing things; sigh

Dago Red, on 23 February 2018 - 02:54 AM, said:

the half assed implementation gets in the way.

If your plan is to take everything down a level then leaving several tall daisies for 6 months is just going to shoot that plan in the foot.

Ohh the things PGI basically just "half assed"

JohnnyWayne, on 23 February 2018 - 03:57 AM, said:

How about they make weapons ******* fun and increase armor and internals at the same time.It is better than ruining the whole game.
.

There was a time when I would've suggested putting ideas like that on the PTS
Doubling armor values, let's find out
Or any basic balance ideas

But somehow I would think that if such a thing would be a success on the PTS that PGI would implement only about half the changes, in the most complicated and convoluted way, and putting in mistakes like increasing armor value for one Mech variant 10 times and a handful Mechs couldn't even equip armor any more while taking a few months to correct such mistakes
Only c-bill Mechs though

Also gotta always have good events going while a PTS is active
Otherwise too many people might get opinions based on the PTS

Nightbird, on 21 February 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

The community doesn't exactly speak with a single united voice. Rather, it screams out "left" "right" "stop" "faster" all at the same time...

Well you can't please everybody, it's the internet, but one could try to find out what "most" want
Like why some maps are not played, and some always get the votes
Why do players love lasers? Is it the pretty lights /s
But ehh

Edited by Peter2k, 23 February 2018 - 04:53 AM.

[PocketYoda]

At least when the game does die we have a name to blame.

[Bud Crue]

Tarogato, on 23 February 2018 - 04:35 AM, said:

What we have to get through to Paul is that TTK is determined by the most effective weapons being fielded with regularity. If laservomit is the fastest killing weapon(s) right now (generally), overall TTK will not go down when alternatives to it are buffed. Buffing a small laser or RAC2 doesn't cause laservomit to kill mechs faster. To achieve overall faster TTK, you would have to buff other weapons so much to the point that they are BETTER at killing mechs than laservomit currently is. But until that point, you're not really reducing overall TTK, you're just increasing the variety of weapons that can achieve the present TTK.

You don't die faster or more. But you die in a greater variety of manners.

Yup. Buffing SRMs for example will not make folks suddenly dominate with SRMs or reduce TTK but merely give some mechs a possible motivation to try something other than MRMs and ERML combos. Same will hold true for all weapons relative to laser vomit. As a personal example: I converted my Ebon to 8MPL from my old 3UAC5s an 3ERML build because UACs are awful. Now the lethality of my mech is higher than ever. In effect the nerfs to UACs has LOWERED TTK at least as far as my use of that mech is concerned. But this consequence is seen across most of my clan mechs and the vast majority of IS mechs too. The lesser effective weapons are just ignored...and what does that do? It reduces build diversity. It reduces player choice. It institutionalizes a meta consisting of only a select few “good” weapons and the select few mechs that run them the best.

This one dimensional play is due to PGI’s obsession with increasing TTK and frankly their odd hesitation to use quirks (positive and negative) to selectively address outlier performance. If they really wanted to increase TTK they would get rid of consumables like strikes and cooldowns, buff or nerf specific variants and their use of select weapons instead of applying broad brush changes to everything (see Gauss/PPC GH for example), and leave the damn weapons alone or better yet buff them in many of the ways you guys have proposed. Sigh. But nope. Instead, as Paul indicated, they will continue the dartboard like nerfing of everything in their misguided quest to increase TTK. And the unfunning continues.

Edited by Bud Crue, 23 February 2018 - 04:58 AM.