THIS - and that is the reason why after the Nerf no one will play Clan in Faction Play anymore.
So the Real Reason behind this Nerf is that PGI wants to kill Faction Play to promote their so successfull Solaris VII.
I think you give PGI too much credit by proposing a conspiracy theory like that. More likely the HighAlphaMeta was a complaint by a small number of vocal players that have PGI's ear.
Star Wars Jedi Mind Trick - "This is not the Meta you are looking for."
Aladin Mind Control - "You will order Paul to Nerf the Meta."
Twitter Hype - "X,Y,Z suck, NERF NOW!"
It's not computers. It's moving a 1 or 10-ton weapon 30 degrees in 0.01 seconds flat, especially when initially at rest or, worse, moving in the opposite direction.
And if somehow you're suggesting going the full simulation route, I just might be convinced, depending o the exact details of course.
Well Mys, nothing against you...but do u know that good player already slow down or stop to do perfect shots? I mean since Ping is involved and u got one and your enemy has another and it adds up. If u stand still already u got only enemy Ping that has to be computed by HSR since your position doesent change... If u MOVE already u DONT have perfect convergence.
A Headless Chicken, on 28 June 2018 - 12:56 AM, said:
Misconception of the game as a whole. One mistake on either side will tilt the scales to favor their opponent. It's just that the skilled player is horribly unlikely to make that mistake - or he makes it and survives.
First of all, my examples are very simplified version of this game. I urge you to not try to throw away arguments based on tiny details of my representations.
And if you think about it for a bit, what you said is already implemented; yes, in real time one mistake may cost his/her life in-game, or he/she survives. Bad players will have far more chance of just dying at the mistake. That is represented as bad players having more ticks for mistake.
Edited by The Lighthouse, 28 June 2018 - 07:26 AM.
well what u think is an opinion, its like my opinion that u r not a good shot. thats why i wrote that bads wants to stay up on a hill and survive. That cant be revarded.
The point is: lasers are actually noob tubes because they are hitscan weapons. Yet, at the same time they are easily the most powerful weapons which enable huge alphas. Something's wrong if you ask me.
I can take my Hunchie IIC with a 60-70 alpha (depending on build) and flank someone. If he doesn't twist at once, it can already be internal - or in case of a med or light they can blow up. It is not that hard to achieve, especially when you are used to light mechs and know how you can sneak up on someone.
Call of Dutywarrior: Online
Besides, I wonder how people can play those utterly dull and boring laser vomit mechs again and again.
Add a multiplying coefficient for C-Bill and XP gain to each chassis, the underperforming chassis getting a coefficient over 1, and under 1 for overperforming chassis. Might encourage diversity on the field.
Ok while we’re at then let’s remove the auto startup and start requiring some form of user input control needed to handle balance while walking in the mech. Apparently nothing can be handled automatically by a computer like most of our current age technology.
Seriously though, if we want this to be more like a sim, then the current convergence would be realistic, since Mech engineers and techs would design and adjust and focus the weapons to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible. Or do people just want to assume that weapons in the BATTLETECH universe are just either ineptly designed, or purposefully designed to give your enemy a better chance to kill you?
Imagine the good old days when people loudly and endlessly complained about those 30-point alpha Gausspaults?
Things have really changed.
Yes and IS Mechs were given massive armor and structure quirks and had hitboxes redesigned to help them against the new higher alphas that came with Clan Mechs. Any by the way, very few Clan Mechs can actually fire an alpha effectively due to the heat and burn times of their weapons. And it is the same 30 point Gauss hits that are hitting you, because the most "skilled" Clan pilots are sniping you in the head with two Gauss rifles.
Add a multiplying coefficient for C-Bill and XP gain to each chassis, the underperforming chassis getting a coefficient over 1, and under 1 for overperforming chassis. Might encourage diversity on the field.
Just saying...
Balancing by cbill earnings doesn't work. It's been tried in several different ways and always failed (Repair & Re-arm, Consumables, Faction Play). When given the choice between cbills and more wins most people will take the cbill hit.
I can partly agree to some people that say that just nerfing Clan Lasers will then lead to nerfing the next best thing in line...
And I think this is where the Community Balance Panel post (and my own overhaul) shine in comparison to the "limited change suggestion" by PGI.
Group of changes vs single weapon (or category) change.
Where the overhaul changes can include all weapons to include nerfs and buffs to bring all weapons closer together from both sides (too low/too high), the singled out changes are more controlled in the approach.
But that's what people demanded often: "dont knee-jerk, over do everything at once. Do iterative steps"
Now PGI is (finally) trying to do this step by step, and the community is complaining before testing the first step.
I guess all we can do is provide both: a big picture change (e.g. Taros list and comments of the community) and also add multi-step process which includes the prefered steps for nerfing/buffing weapons iteratively (or with big bang).
Only problem is, that most suggestions do not consider nerfs at all (Taros list is mostly buffs), so PGI is still the one who needs to take care of this part of the process equation - and therefore to blame for the "negative" part in the end.
Seriously though, if we want this to be more like a sim, then the current convergence would be realistic, since Mech engineers and techs would design and adjust and focus the weapons to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible. Or do people just want to assume that weapons in the BATTLETECH universe are just either ineptly designed, or purposefully designed to give your enemy a better chance to kill you?
I was being sarcastic towards Mystere. I know what we have is fine and should be acceptable for the future.
justcallme A S H, on 27 June 2018 - 03:42 PM, said:
These threads always amazed me at just how many people do not truly understand balancing in a video game...
Increase TTK, nerf this to make the game fun...
You people must be being purposefully obtuse... People can't be that ignorant, surely?
Increasing TTK just magnifies the advantages of being a good player. It stretches the skill curve. Ironically games like CoD actually DO do this - many times more powerfully than MWO does. It does it by respawns. Sure, 1 hit 1 kill 180 noscope kills seem instant but the guy you killed is back in action at 100% efficiency in seconds.
MWO still has a dramatically lower TTK than the great majority of games out there because there's no respawns and your performance consistently degrades until you are 100% out of the match. To match most the shooter games out there TTK would have to be extended to the point that every player was active and playing with only a few seconds delay for the whole duration of the match or until objectives are completed.
I'm certainly not advocating for any of that. Ironically I'm advocating for a bit of a general increase in TTK for the opposite reason many of the people here are doing the same thing. The reality is that Navid is 100% correct - mistakes are punished by damage. The better a player is the less mistakes they make and the better they are at being in position to punish the other guys mistakes. Longer TTK actually 100% equates to amplifying the advantages of skill; the odds of a bad player 'getting lucky' decrease as TTK goes up.
That's a good thing. MWO suffers from two issues; one is a narrow, flat-topped, sharp ended skill curve. You suck at the game until you figure out the basics. Then you're pretty much just like everyone else until you learn proper positioning, twisting and either develop the right habits for good accuracy/snapshots or you get a great mouse and/or big mousepad. The MWO skill curve looks like a pretty flat-topped 'n'. Longer TTK would turn that into a wider, more gradual curve. The second is bad return on time invested. You spend more time waiting for matches and loading matches than actually playing. Longer TTK keeps player time in match squeezing triggers longer.
That helps matchmaking and player progression by a lot. It also means the top tier players will win even more against lower/mid tier players. I have 0 issue with that and in the long run it's better for the game IMO.
Increasing TTK just magnifies the advantages of being a good player. It stretches the skill curve. Ironically games like CoD actually DO do this - many times more powerfully than MWO does. It does it by respawns. Sure, 1 hit 1 kill 180 noscope kills seem instant but the guy you killed is back in action at 100% efficiency in seconds.
MWO still has a dramatically lower TTK than the great majority of games out there because there's no respawns and your performance consistently degrades until you are 100% out of the match. To match most the shooter games out there TTK would have to be extended to the point that every player was active and playing with only a few seconds delay for the whole duration of the match or until objectives are completed.
I'm certainly not advocating for any of that. Ironically I'm advocating for a bit of a general increase in TTK for the opposite reason many of the people here are doing the same thing. The reality is that Navid is 100% correct - mistakes are punished by damage. The better a player is the less mistakes they make and the better they are at being in position to punish the other guys mistakes. Longer TTK actually 100% equates to amplifying the advantages of skill; the odds of a bad player 'getting lucky' decrease as TTK goes up.
That's a good thing. MWO suffers from two issues; one is a narrow, flat-topped, sharp ended skill curve. You suck at the game until you figure out the basics. Then you're pretty much just like everyone else until you learn proper positioning, twisting and either develop the right habits for good accuracy/snapshots or you get a great mouse and/or big mousepad. The MWO skill curve looks like a pretty flat-topped 'n'. Longer TTK would turn that into a wider, more gradual curve. The second is bad return on time invested. You spend more time waiting for matches and loading matches than actually playing. Longer TTK keeps player time in match squeezing triggers longer.
That helps matchmaking and player progression by a lot. It also means the top tier players will win even more against lower/mid tier players. I have 0 issue with that and in the long run it's better for the game IMO.
I just wanted to quote this all for emphasis. The "We should keep it the same for your own good spuds. Trust me." set is getting really tiresome, and is transparently protectionist, disingenuous, and condescending. The above is a great explanation of why even though a longer TTK and a more even weapon set favors the most skilled in the short term it's still better for the game in the long run. The only reason you wouldn't be in favor of this is if you fear you aren't actually at the top of the food chain.
Edited by Agent of Change, 28 June 2018 - 03:27 PM.
Agent of Change, on 28 June 2018 - 03:27 PM, said:
I just wanted to quote this all for emphasis. The "We should keep it the same for your own good spuds. Trust me." set is getting really tiresome, and is transparently protectionist, disingenuous, and condescending. The above is a great explanation of why even though a longer TTK and a more even weapon set favors the most skilled in the short term it's still better for the game in the long run. The only reason you wouldn't be in favor of this is if you fear you aren't actually at the top of the food chain.
low skill players will almost always lose vs high skill players,
-
we shouldnt reward low skill players just for being low skilled players,
-
we should reward beneficial Player actions in a match,
we should Encourage low skill players to become more skill full,
we should help players find groups and matches with balanced skill levels
if twisting is a necessary skill to learn in MWO, a Skill that will drastically increase survivability,
we should not reward players that stair and face hug enemy mechs, hoping to win with sheer volume of fire,
we should reward good habits, good play, good skills,
and not bad habits bad play and bad skill,
If nothing is make i prefer to see the possibility to have 3 queue IS CLAN AND BOTH and let player choose what meta they prefer.
I'd prefer forced IS vs. IS, Clan vs. Clan, or IS vs. Clan based on player availability. That reduces the number of buckets and keeps matchmaking faster.
It is all about bringing IS closer to CLAN with all their overpowered Armor and STRUCTURE Quirks.
*ironie off*
Sry to say but the Guys which are responsible for those NERFS/BUFFS should realy play more FP.
200 Matches QP in 6 Years and you rly think that this give you the abillity to call out some buffs or nerfs?
I played 100 Matches this month and i am a new player - i nearly played 300 matches in 3 month - that are 100 Matches more than you played in all your time ( 6 years ),
Chris - you are not in any Position to call out any balance or unbalance - simply because you are not into the game at all!
High Alpha 80+ is not a Clan Thing alone - mrm100 on IS Side?
What is your way to test it at all?
2 Mech (one IS one Clan - 250 meters away - standing still ( no twist at all ) - taking those numbers?) - Is Chris getting paid for what "USELESS" tests he is doing at all?
I would let him pay the bill all alone !
He is killing play styles since he is doing the balancing stuff - because of what?
Did someone oneshooted him in a dire?
I was never oneshooted from a dire at all - also not from a DS, or BAS!
Like i mentioned - i play this game for nearly 3 month now but no way that Clan Laser is overpowered!
IS dual heavy gauss - that i cannot roll.
Clan Laser Vomit - easy to roll that kind of Damage.
I rly like to play FP but the last Month it was really hard to fight against good IS Pilots in their really good IS brawling Beasts and no SIEGE Map has let me play Laser Vomit - ( Range was always a thing to keep in mind but but simply cannot keep that range on objectives! )
And IS was always in the Position to push us to the Limit!
I would call for a BUFF of Turrets and GENS because it is such a hilarious thing to see overpowered IS Brawling Monsteres doing GEN rushes.
There is NO NEED for a Laser NERF - but for a BUFF of Turrets and GENS in FP.
PS.: This game still rocks somehow - but by killing Clans more and more you will loose even the last Believers - with what you will be left are those like the 10 thousands of new Players which will play some Matches and then leave the game at all because MWO is not Battletech and never should be!
Do not try to balance for the bottom players ( Which will never learn, simply because they do not want to learn. )
There is a cool Solution out there - and if you would listen to the Community like you mention you did - then you would try that on the PTS!
Sry about my spellings. English is not easy at all!
Seriously though, if we want this to be more like a sim, then the current convergence would be realistic, since Mech engineers and techs would design and adjust and focus the weapons to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible. Or do people just want to assume that weapons in the BATTLETECH universe are just either ineptly designed, or purposefully designed to give your enemy a better chance to kill you?
If this was closer to a Battletech sim, the battlecomputer does the computing while the mechwarrior kept the crosshairs on the target. The it would give a fire tone for a high probability to HIT the mech itself, no a specific location on the mech, ie the elbow of a mech, cockpit, the upper left torso area...
11
Noguchi-san, on 28 June 2018 - 05:52 AM, said:
