71 replies to this topic

[JediPanther]

Pgi's poor map design is the cause of NASCAR plain and simple. How many maps have a central feature weather it be geography,a structure or combination of the two? If it isn't the map it is reinforced by domination point. Add to that the fastest mech is roughly 170kph while the slowest assault is a 40kph slug and easy target.

I'm not going to bother to suggest any map design changes simply because its all been said before some where in the past five years. Pgi can data mine their own forum, I'm not being paid to for them.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

picking your mech after knowing where you are going to fight would be a huge improvement, i am always shooting the ground on polar or in a brawler on alpine....

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Gorantir, on 21 July 2018 - 07:39 AM, said:

picking your mech after knowing where you are going to fight would be a huge improvement, i am always shooting the ground on polar or in a brawler on alpine....

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand choosing your mech would be nice. On the other hand I don't want 20+ LRM boats every time I drop on an open map.

[Kroete]

I Come In Peace, on 21 July 2018 - 02:37 AM, said:

Principle - A good pilot making good decisions in a good mech built to achieve good damage should have a good game as far as damage, maybe 4 out of 5 games. The 1 bad game out of 5 comes more from plain old bad luck or a team that did not fully gel.

- LRMs - I may be subjective because I do not use LRMs. And I am okay with their ability. The issue is Map Picker + Polar Highlands = LRMrs using their weighted votes to have Polar Highlands chosen where they are OP. The issue with that is that brawlish types are severely handicapped in this map. Perhaps not in all modes but most of them. Trading brawls are where a lot of the fun and skill in MWO resides. LRMrs also share armor less, are less likely to be assertive and in general not play any tactics or strategies. MM adding a large ratio of LRMrs on one team causes failure of the principle.

If you want to have a 4 of 5 ratio for "good" games, you want to play against worse players!
If you want even matches, your wanted ration should be 1of2, your wl/kd matches this,
if you want better numbers, get better but dont ask for nerfings to get better stats.

The last 2 new maps are bad for lrms, but you want only to nerf polar?
Seems you are not realy for even matches?
Should i mention that there are also some old maps that are not that easy if you use lrms too?
More cover for polar, less cover for all other maps! Sounds fair?

Edit: 1of2 is false, i meant 1/1 for even matches.

Edited by Kroete, 21 July 2018 - 01:22 PM.

[Lightfoot]

MWO started down the path of nerfing rather than balancing with the Gauss Rifle charge-up. Something which is from Quake and Duke Nukem sniper rifles and has no place in BattleTech. The standard Gauss with no charge-up should have formed the balancing point for all the other weapons because if you can't get that right you end up chasing your tail trying to balance everything else.

Gauss Rifles with no charge-up are not over-powered in other MechWarrior games, they are just mech sized rifles, slow to recycle, but with good range accuracy. So by failing that simple balancing task, all of the other weapons needed to be rebalanced with nerfs that make MWO weapons sluggish and inaccurate. Now if they had made the mechs tough enough to shrug off a few 2xGauss hits, all the other weapons in MWO would be very effective and more rewarding to use. This is what I call fun gameplay. Would have been so easy when there were only 8 or 9 mechs in the game, now it's too late.

Shame I have to start up MechWarrior 4 to use a Gauss based on a BattleTech Gauss Rifle. But you know what? I would not always use Gauss Rifles in MW4 because it isn't always the best solution, in fact I rarely use a Gauss in MW4 at all. It's not OP with no charge-up and it should not be OP with no charge-up in MWO as well. See what I mean?

[El Bandito]

Lightfoot, on 21 July 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

Shame I have to start up MechWarrior 4 to use a Gauss based on a BattleTech Gauss Rifle. But you know what? I would not always use Gauss Rifles in MW4 because it isn't always the best solution, in fact I rarely use a Gauss in MW4 at all. It's not OP with no charge-up and it should not be OP with no charge-up in MWO as well. See what I mean?

That's cause MW4 had OP weapons such as no duration lasers. The fact Gauss wasn't underpowered compared to that means a lot.

Gauss would always be problematic in MW games because of its close to no heat nature. Not by itself, but when combined with other heat using lighter weapons such as ERLLs and PPCs.

Then there is the CGauss with mere 12 ton cost. Without charge up, quad Gauss KDK-3 woulda made the pre-nerf dakka bear look meh.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 July 2018 - 09:24 AM.

[Nightbird]

I have good matches 4 out of 5 times. Are you sure it's not you?

[GuardDogg]

Nascar problem. I would think, say. How, where mechs are dropped. I consider timing as well. Assaults should be dropped first, move into a direction (and not always to the Right). Then mediums, and then lights. Since MWO came out, in beta every pilot moves to the right. That now today, no one has tactical skills at all, None. I can bring something up, but not even half the team will follow tactic moves. The team continues to move on their own...which is to the right. So no one bothers anymore. Not one person will take command at all, for a lot of reasons.

[Phoenix 72]

That's what people are used to. They drive on the right side of the road (for the most part) and right handed people usually pick their strong side when choosing a "random" direction. Want to stop Nascar? Turn left, instead of right. In most cases, you will run headfirst into the opponent who is heading to the right. Because most people are just wired like that.

Edited by Darakor Stormwind, 21 July 2018 - 10:51 AM.

[Asym]

El Bandito, on 21 July 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

I have good damage matches every 4 games out of 5, in good mechs, without issue. Perhaps OP is simply not as good as he thinks?

All of your stated problems can be mitigated in QP, as others have written above.

EL, I struggle with "Good".... What is good if the other 23 pilots are terrible or if they are pro level? What you get from those extremes can and maybe be "good" or "terrible." I've been in matches that I was the "better player" and was shocked.....that we stomped another team with players that were in fact, after looking up a few stats, far better than I am ! An extreme result based on "the situation" and map... Was I "GuD" or were the really good pilots that bad?

I'm not an expert player by any means but I've had A+++ matches when playing with potatoes and D+++ matches playing with pro's..... So, what can you infer from those extreme examples: nothing.... Luck, fate, and a whole bundle of other descriptors that would make sense... In the end, good is relative to the other 23 players.....yes, you can 100% contribute and still lose or, you have have an average performance and be a star.... The standards are that skewed from what I've seen in the limited amount of games I've played this past several months.

LOW population skews everything to the point that "just winning" is a nice thing to do.....even if that only happens 30% of the time.... The game isn't ruined: the game is frozen in time due to a lack of money and involvement with the only activity being related to new mech sales... Sadly, there is no consistency because there is no player consistency...

OP - in each QP game you get a team with x many "El Bandito's" or y many "Asym's".... Extremes: one + w/l and one - w/l. sometimes they balance out and most times they don't.... I think it's just where we are at the moment.

[Jon Gotham]

I Come In Peace, on 21 July 2018 - 02:37 AM, said:

*snip*

I think your definition of good damage is different to mine. Yours seems to be about big numbers.
Mine is dead mechs in swiftest time possible, meaning efficiently as possible.
I don't care one jot if I do a lot of damage-as long as it's efficient and lethal.

[El Bandito]

Asym, on 21 July 2018 - 12:44 PM, said:

EL, I struggle with "Good".... What is good if the other 23 pilots are terrible or if they are pro level? What you get from those extremes can and maybe be "good" or "terrible." I've been in matches that I was the "better player" and was shocked.....that we stomped another team with players that were in fact, after looking up a few stats, far better than I am ! An extreme result based on "the situation" and map... Was I "GuD" or were the really good pilots that bad?

Winning or losing is not the issue here. OP is complaining cause he couldn't even get consistently good damage in the majority of the game, and he is blaming it on factors that can be controlled. Good players can readily do large amount of damage in the mechs they are comfortable with, in 4/5 games they play--which is why OP is not as good as he believes he is, and needs to think things through.

Talking about how the game is being ruined by Piranha/Nascar/Polar already tells me this guy's skill level, and his real agenda--which is to nerf/remove anything he can't deal with.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 July 2018 - 01:28 PM.

[Lightfoot]

El Bandito, on 21 July 2018 - 09:16 AM, said:

That's cause MW4 had OP weapons such as no duration lasers. The fact Gauss wasn't underpowered compared to that means a lot.

Gauss would always be problematic in MW games because of its close to no heat nature. Not by itself, but when combined with other heat using lighter weapons such as ERLLs and PPCs.

Then there is the CGauss with mere 12 ton cost. Without charge up, quad Gauss KDK-3 woulda made the pre-nerf dakka bear look meh.

It's all about balancing. MWO has more powerful lasers than MW4, it's just up to you to hit with the full duration. And especially small and medium lasers. MW4 balanced the Gauss with an 8 second recycle compared to UAC20 and LB-20X's 6 second recycle.

Anyway, MWO's mechs are too weak and not able to take a 2x Gauss hit without it shattering the mech significantly. That shows MWO mechs are too weak, not that the Gauss Rifle is too strong. The Gauss Rifle is a constant measuring device. It doesn't change. The correct fix was to make the mechs tougher, not turn to Duke Nukem for an apocryphal nerf of the Gauss Rifle. But we got the charge-up and that led to Ghost Heat, DHS 1.4, ever lengthening durations on lasers, garbage LRMs, garbage PPCs, AC20s with travel times like softballs, etc. All that was needed was to make the mechs tougher and MWO's gameplay and the feel of the combat would be much sharper with some nicely tanky mechs.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 21 July 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

Talking about how the game is being ruined by Piranha/Nascar/Polar already tells me this guy's skill level, and his real agenda--which is to nerf/remove anything he can't deal with.

That has always been the case for "certain types of players" -- for the last five years.

[Burke IV]

Like anybody who ever complained about LRMs. Ever.

[Shadowomega1]

El Bandito, on 21 July 2018 - 09:16 AM, said:

That's cause MW4 had OP weapons such as no duration lasers. The fact Gauss wasn't underpowered compared to that means a lot.

Gauss would always be problematic in MW games because of its close to no heat nature. Not by itself, but when combined with other heat using lighter weapons such as ERLLs and PPCs.

Then there is the CGauss with mere 12 ton cost. Without charge up, quad Gauss KDK-3 woulda made the pre-nerf dakka bear look meh.

Not to mention MW3 and MW4 Gauss Rifles had an 8 second cycle time, compared to the 4 second cycle time in MWO.



As for NASCARing it can be a pain in the arse when your team has many fast lights, mediums, and moderately fast heavies, with slow assaults. Furthermore, any object that blocks LOS now matter how small people will start circling it just to get rear shots on who ever they think they can catch.

[El Bandito]

Lightfoot, on 21 July 2018 - 03:56 PM, said:

It's all about balancing. MWO has more powerful lasers than MW4, it's just up to you to hit with the full duration. And especially small and medium lasers. MW4 balanced the Gauss with an 8 second recycle compared to UAC20 and LB-20X's 6 second recycle.

Anyway, MWO's mechs are too weak and not able to take a 2x Gauss hit without it shattering the mech significantly. That shows MWO mechs are too weak, not that the Gauss Rifle is too strong.

MW4 mechs were even weaker. My Executioner could make an Assault's CT internals cherry red in one shot, with a mix of CGauss and CERLL, and the shots were so easy to make since the lasers had no duration and Gauss had no charge. In fact, builds that can one-shot Assault mechs from the front could have been done easily in MW4, if not for its coding that forced a mech to die in two shots at minimum. It was only thanks to Ghost Heat that MWO is not in similar situation.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 July 2018 - 08:02 PM.

[DarkFhoenix]

I Come In Peace, on 21 July 2018 - 06:04 AM, said:

It is a grandioso plan to stir up a revolution in the MWO players and that results in changes to the game that will make me want to play again. JJ. More like, I am innocently wondering if others are similarly disenchanted.

I totally love this game ....................at this point in time . MWO has my loyalty and money ....................for now . When i am bored or unhappy or found something better , i will move on.

Wow can you imagine how broken the game would be if each and every player,s complaints regarding any and all aspects of the game were attended to ASAP ? How about the players who find nothing wrong with the game ? Players who have not been sitting here since the "beta" . What sucks for you might be perfectly fine for someone else . Everyone has different ideas on how to make any game more fun .

Dont tell me how cool the game was 4 years ago , thats in the past , thats history , a memory and means nothing to me . Things change , things improve and move forward . When a dramatic change is implemented , it has been debated and argued and hair has been pulled out 2 or 6 months before by the Devs who are trying to satisfy if not everyone at least most of them .

You need to face reality , the game is not broken , you have just played for a very long time and you are a BORED . You dont have to play one game for 20 years , you have a million other options .
This is a game ,a consumer product meant to generate revenue , if you dont like it , your best possible action you can take , is to play other products . Thats the loudest message , you can give to anyone .

It,s not your problem to like a giant robot game , it is someone,s problem to motivate you to like it . This is a 1 second decision my friends . Life is just that easy for us .

Edited by DarkFhoenix, 21 July 2018 - 10:08 PM.

[Burke IV]

Its broken. Go back a few years it was a decent shooter that scratched the shooter itch. Now it doesnt and its full of new bugs they invented. The desire to get mech packs out rather than think about balance issues with new weapons has created a game that appears to be impossible to balance. Such a terrible sad shame cause when it was good it was great.


When i read the thread title i think of stewie griffin

Edited by Burke IV, 21 July 2018 - 11:20 PM.

[Lances107]

Op you are wrong on Nasscar, you are wrong on the PIRs, but you are right about the LRMS though missing the point somewhat.

Nasscar is a tactic, it is up to each player to be aware, if they are not and die then it is there fault. Have you bothered to look at the PIRs armor? Have you bothered to run machine guns against the fresh front armor of mediums, heavies, and assaults? You will run out of bullets, even with 12 machine guns, before you get anywhere. Again this comes down to a couple of things. First if the victim is dumb enough to be running with 5 points or less on his rear armor in a heavy or assault. Secondly again being aware of your HUD and sensors. If you see a enemy light then find your team so you can rip them apart. If you see yourself taking damage but see no enemy on your sensors. Its a light find your team and kill it.

LRMS are not a problem on polar, but here is the problem. As you said too many LRM boats upping the vote for polar, which is making it pop up way way too often. Problem two is if your the poor sob that gets stuck on a team with four or more LRM boats, and the other team is direct fire. Get ready to get stomped. These are the problems with LRMS. Which is why I want the maximum missile range reduced to 600 meters. So these rookies learn this.

Why MWO succeeds? Because it is based heavily on team work and player skill. What you guys want is perfect balance, perfect matchmaking, another words what you really want is a I win button with everything made generic as possible. Sorry but I have seen that happen to too many games, and they were utterly ruined by this obsession for perfect balance, and perfect matchmaking. Hell why dont you ask the devs for healer mechs? Even better ask the devs for shield abilities? Hell lets go further ask the devs for everything to be turned into abilities, so we can have another generic kids game. Wait a minutes lets go even further lets get rid of all customization of mechs, so you do not have to think, act, or be a human being instead you can be a good little sheep and role with the generic.