605 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

TTK is already slightly too long.

I have no interest in playing a version of MWO that is even more sluggish and clumsy.

[Khobai]

TTK feels too long on the IS side. Those quirks are completely absurd.

But I think TTK is mostly fine for Clans.

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

The last part drives a number of things on our end. While we know that Heavies and Assaults are very popular within both the game and the franchise, within the context of a PvP multiplayer game, they still need to be balanced to a point where light and medium 'Mechs can still legitimately compete and pose a threat against them.

Have you considered making heavies/assaults more dependent on lights/mediums for certain things?

For example reducing the sensor ranges on most heavies/assaults to like 400m-600m so they have to rely more on lights/mediums to spot for them.

Adding role warfare and role dependencies is another way of balancing the different weight classes. If an assault LRM boat with bad sensors needs to rely on a light mech with good sensors to spot for it, that adds value to the light mech. Its a way of making light mechs better without making them straight up better in combat.

I think sensor/information warfare is a woefully neglected area of this game. But its an area lights and mediums could really excel at if they were given the right tools.

Edited by Khobai, 10 August 2018 - 02:01 PM.

[SilentScreamer]

Khobai, on 10 August 2018 - 01:50 PM, said:

Have you considered making heavies/assaults more dependent on lights/mediums for certain things?

For example reducing the sensor ranges on most heavies/assaults to like 400m-600m so they have to rely more on lights/mediums to spot for them.
...
I think sensor/information warfare is a woefully neglected area of this game. But its an area lights and mediums could really excel at if they were given the right tools.

This kind of thing was on the "laser lock" PTS a few years ago. It was horrible and thankfully never made it to live servers.

[Khobai]

SilentScreamer, on 10 August 2018 - 02:21 PM, said:

This kind of thing was on the "laser lock" PTS a few years ago. It was horrible and thankfully never made it to live servers.

that was a good idea it was just poorly implemented. much like energy draw.

because it only affected lasers, not other weapons, and it made ecm act like a shield vs lasers. which was just plain silly.

but sensors should absolutely matter more in MWO and lights/mediums should have better sensors than heavies/assaults

I would not mind seeing a max range damage penalty (weapons inside optimum range would be unaffected) if you dont have a sensor lock. That would make getting sensor locks actually matter when firing beyond optimum range.

Edited by Khobai, 10 August 2018 - 02:44 PM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Khobai, on 10 August 2018 - 01:50 PM, said:

Have you considered making heavies/assaults more dependent on lights/mediums for certain things?

For example reducing the sensor ranges on most heavies/assaults to like 400m-600m so they have to rely more on lights/mediums to spot for them.

Adding role warfare and role dependencies is another way of balancing the different weight classes. If an assault LRM boat with bad sensors needs to rely on a light mech with good sensors to spot for it, that adds value to the light mech. Its a way of making light mechs better without making them straight up better in combat.

I think sensor/information warfare is a woefully neglected area of this game. But its an area lights and mediums could really excel at if they were given the right tools.

The problem is those things, while nice, don't actively contribute to combat or winning games (unless your looking exclusively at LRM's and ATM's.) And in the Missile weapon's case, it actively gets in the way of self acquired locks for things like LRM's and ATM's for Heavies and Assaults. Which means that unless you have a dedicated support 'Mech to spot for you, your LRM weapon tonnage effectively sits like a useless brick in your build, which simply is not fun to play. Especially in solo queue where you can't control the team mates you get. So it becomes a fairly niche role application unless we change it to what other games do and make physical LOS dependent on sensor detection. But even then, those mechanics are often very divisive in the games that do utilize them and doesn't really fit into a game defined by walking robots the size of 2-3 story buildings.

The core gameplay in MWO is always going to revolve around 'Mech combat first. So as a generality, Lights and Mediums still have to be able to actively contribute to the fight and be able to stand toe to toe against heavier 'Mechs in direct combat situations in their own way. Otherwise we simply run into the problem where they do a neat little trick, but it doesn't actively contribute to your team actually winning the match. Which in turn feeds into a notion that if your team is in a skirmish match and each team is at 11, 11, the team with the heavier 'Mech is the instant favorite to win the match so why play lighter 'Mechs at all? That latter issue was one of the issues we had when I first started on the team where the team with the one KDK 3 or the Maruder IIC Scorch at the end was at a distinct advantage to the teams with even 2 to 3 mid-tonned medium IS 'Mechs in skirmish matches.

So basically, if a full class of 'Mechs cannot be an active participant towards tangibly winning the match compared to heavier options, then it becomes an issue for us, because then you run into that age old problem of "no one likes to play support." Especially if half of your overall 'Mech roster is going to be 55 tons and under. Its just too much of the overall 'Mech roster being put in positions where they are immediately seen as inferior to other, often heavier, options when it comes to tangible contributions to the match that results in a win.

With that said though, that is just talking about everything in the widest general sense. When it comes to individual 'Mechs, this is something I would love to push for more of. On that front, I've finally received permission to try out a new baseline 'Mech quirk in a big way to push for one particular 'Mech to be much more focused on the "Objective Play" angle to still contribute to a match's win conditions. It's very much more of a niche quirk, but we'll see how well it works at improving the overall role for that particular 'Mech come August patch.

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Hello, MWO devs. I play this game for not a very long time. But i also played a lot of other games like this one.And im totally casual player. I don't really care about a competition around. Also, my English is bad, sorry. I want to write something anyway.

Well, i actually don't see Lurms as a problem. There must be some off-screen death to everyone, who is not up to stick to the cover/team/common sense. Its normal for the other games of this jenre. But everyone hates Lurms.

So, i would suggest to try and apply things you can see in other games of such jenre to Death-From-Above weapon you have in your game.

Like:
MW:LL: lust time i check an evil twin of the MWO has a way, way better optimal ranges on pretty much every direct damage weapon. LRM boat is pretty much unable to scout target for itself there. But lurmers are also have 2000m range for their lurms and an ability to shoot them by choosing target. Everyone is fine with lurms there

WOT - the biggest bully of the block: Artillery vehichles of the game was able to one-shot things. Once in a minute. If a shot hit a dude. But BAM! - and there is no heavy tank, so devs applyed damage nerf - rate of fire buff - debuff application. In a terms of MWO - say make lurms strike lighter, but apply heat, or make them make mechs less agile. But anyway, everyone is fine with artillery there.

and again WOT: artillery there shoot once in half minute, so maybe a considerable decrease to rate of fire with a considerable increase in damage would be a way to settle lrm problem, so lrm will strike hard, but not often.

Original Battletech, MW3 and MW:LL: all have more weapons. Actually there are things like artillery, unguided long range missiles, now let me quote:

Damnedtroll, on 10 August 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

NB: The only addition I would like would be dedicated melee mech with hatchet like Hatchetman, axeman and Berserker.

even close range brawl is a thing in battletch! Maybe its time to evaluate something capable to death-from-above lurmers themselves?

WT and AW: no devoted artillery vehichles in pvp at all.

WT and MW:LL again: You may occasionally fly a plane against a tank in WT and its actually an assimetric and effective way to handle lurmers or campers in the MWO. Okay, i guess planes is not an options at the moment for mwo, but its kind of honorable mention.
Thats pretty much all i can say about lurmers

Also, i want to mention, that some of the game problems in balance is a problems of metagame, a problem about CW. Faction play is incredibly frustrating while you have this set of two teams always facing each other. Not only a person may face a premade high skill players team every day, but also if there is such team around - he will face the people, who handed his *** to him every game.Cause playerbase is narrow and devided between two sides. And there is no way to avoid facing the same people again and again. And you can always expect to have a bunch of the same losers on the your side too.
I would say, that something like Battlefield model, or any ongoing old-school server with changing maps would be better as a FW anyway

And the last one, the thing i want to tell and i will write it anyway somewhere else too, but it applyes to balance too. So, please, Piranha Games, stop playing safe with the balance issues. Your game is not a cybersport. At the moment Its interesting for a small bunch of people. Player base is dropping. People don't play it in the current state. So, why not change radically, or just radically revert changes to some point when there was a lot of players around? People would be pissed off anyway, so why not try to do something interesting. To illustarte my point of view: while you chip out the power of your mechs for all this years, you made your vehichles simply uninteresting and boring to play. I strongly believe, that If you compare your game to the other games around, you will see, that a mighty 100t 10m tall bipedal vechicle of 3rd millenium of MWO is tremendously inferior to whatever world war II track **** you can imagine. Mech can't see. Mech effectively has no radar. Mech can't hide. Mech is not agile. Mech overheats. If a Soviet Era T-34-85 of WOT will fight a mech of a similair tonnage of MWO - T-34-85 will win. It will see an enemy first, it may shoot out of cover undetected. It may survive the opposing mech barrage uscathed. Finally, it rams! And it rams hard! The only thing a mech of MWO can do is to fight in a blob of same mechs against a blob of other mechs. I guess i play MWO over the other similair games because I masochist, or something. By the way, in MW:LL there is no such t-34 problem - mechs there are way more powerfull and they have radar.

So, please, make yor game good and interesting despite balance issues. Make your mechs great again:)

Edited by Sneaky Ohgoorchik, 10 August 2018 - 02:49 PM.

[Khobai]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 02:40 PM, said:

The problem is those things, while nice, don't actively contribute to combat or winning games

it would if you tied sensors into damage

I definitely wouldnt penalize weapons inside their optimum range

but maybe have a damage penalty when firing outside of the optimum range without a sensor lock


the ERLL is a big offender so using that as an example...

firing an ERLL upto 675m would never have a penalty because its inside the optimum range

but firing past 675m would incur an X% damage penalty if you dont have a sensor lock on the target.

say a -30% damage penalty or something.


hitting things at long range is supposed to be really hard in battletech. I feel like its too easy in MWO. And I feel like lights/mediums that are up front scouting the enemy mechs should be able to help their heavies/assaults do more damage.

Edited by Khobai, 10 August 2018 - 02:52 PM.

[Chris Lowrey]

Khobai, on 10 August 2018 - 02:48 PM, said:

it would if you tied sensors into damage

I definitely wouldnt penalize weapons inside their optimum range

but maybe have a damage penalty when firing outside of the optimum range without a sensor lock

While I wasn't on the team at the time, I remember as a player how much the laser lock-on PTS was received. And even in these cases, you still run into the issue where the Lights and Mediums are there to provide locks to "damage boost" the more heavily armed Heavies and Assaults. (As they would inevitably benefit the most from the locks in the first place.) And not really do damage themselves.

I'm not against pushing for more info warfare or other avenues to provide more role based incentives to take lighter 'Mechs, but at the end of the day, they need to be seen as equally viable to contributing to a win in a Skirmish game mode match as their heavier counterparts so whatever we do provide them has to be able to directly contribute to that goal. At least when your looking across the wider tonnage range as a generality. Which is a key point that anchors many of the changes we examine.

[The6thMessenger]

You know, instead of balancing on the top tier or lowest tier, maybe it should have been balanced in the mid tier?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

dwwolf, on 10 August 2018 - 12:09 PM, said:

So in effect MWO has a double whammy : weapons were made more powerfull relative to armor......and we allow pin point damage application.

And somehow we are surprised TTK is low ?

What....weapons damage potential may have been more powerful but weapon alphas certainly are not. A Hellstar in TT is equivalent two an 8 cERPPC mech in this game (but substantially more heat efficient).

The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2018 - 02:54 PM, said:

You know, instead of balancing on the top tier or lowest tier, maybe it should have been balanced in the mid tier?

That doesn't make sense. How you do balance for lack of player skill or understanding of how the game works? How can you even derive what is and isn't balanced in the underhive? The most important factor in the lower end of play has nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with fun.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2018 - 03:06 PM.

[SilentScreamer]

Chris Lowrey, on 10 August 2018 - 09:28 AM, said:

I often break it down into "Battletech Balance" vs. "PvP balance" arguments.

...

While we know that Heavies and Assaults are very popular within both the game and the franchise, within the context of a PvP multiplayer game, they still need to be balanced to a point where light and medium 'Mechs can still legitimately compete and pose a threat against them. Same with Clan vs. Inner Sphere balance. While we want to preserve as much of the core of what makes Battletech / Mechwarrior what it is, we do need to mind that the core game we are building is a PvP multiplayer shooter. So at its core, the superior team / player should be the one that wins, not the one who brings the superior 'Mech or load-out.

"Battletech Balance" is also based on a turned-based tabletop game where the player controls multiple units. Not everything even can translate to MWO which is a real-time shooter/simulator. So PGI has adjusted weapon damage/heat/cooldown and added Agility, Quirks and made hitbox adjustments to help gameplay, but I see a flip-flop from PGI between Battletech (UpwardScale Balance) and PvP Balance (all mechs equal) when the two should be mutually exclusive.

PVP Balance - If all mechs were given a rating from 1 to 10 based on performance in match the goal would be a bell-curve centered on mechs rated 4, 5 and 6 right? That would be ideal for solo queue Quickplay or Solaris 7. The matchmaker doesn't care what mech you bring, and if all mechs wre 4, 5 or 6s it wouldn't matter.
Ex: Light/medium mechs get armor/structure quirks so they are tankier, and heatreduction/weapon cooldown so they can deal more damage
Ex2: Heavy/Assault mechs get agility boosts so they can track faster targets and twist/move to spread/avoid damage
Every mech moves toward vanilla, everyone being equal.

Battletech Balance - The current system as you mentioned is based on larger mechs with more guns carrying the match, otherwise Group Play and Faction Play would not need pilots/teams to be limited by tonnage. Heavy/Assault mechs generally have more guns and more armor, even when they have the same speed class as a Light/Medium mech.
Ex1: Linebacker SRM carrier VS. Adder SRM carrier. You get more missiles/more armor on the Linebacker, but it is 30 tons heavier,
Ex2: The Kitfox can be loaded with SRMs is the same speed and takes only 30 tons
So, is it worth 65 tons in your dropdeck over the 35 the Adder, or the 30 for the Kitfox? If the whole team is doing a push as a trained premade might the Linebacker will probably be the mech of choice for staying power. Otherwise, the Kitfox or Adder are a much better bargain as they are "cheaper" when your tonnage is limited by team/dropdeck mechanics.

So does PGI want to balance to Battletech with power scaling up alongside tonnage OR do PvP balance where all mechs are moved toward the middle and equality?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 10 August 2018 - 01:50 PM, said:

For example reducing the sensor ranges on most heavies/assaults to like 400m-600m so they have to rely more on lights/mediums to spot for them.

This is a dumb idea and will remain dumb. If you played at a higher level you would already know that lights are very important for scouting (and scouting is also very important). Nor does this make them more enjoyable to play because that doesn't improve the one major flaw of lights, their firepower or really, their ability to turn the tide of a match like assaults/heavies can.

Now, giving some lights the added benefit of non-LoS sensors could also help given that it would reduce the risk on their part of getting caught.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2018 - 03:09 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 10 August 2018 - 01:50 PM, said:

TTK feels too long on the IS side. Those quirks are completely absurd.

But I think TTK is mostly fine for Clans.

Clan-on-Clan is about where it was in 2015, back when the game was at its most entertaining for what sounds like a lot of people (myself included). They have higher alphas now compared to then, but they also have more armor so it ends up a wash.

IS-on-Clan and Clan-on-IS are slower than they were. With the exception of HGauss builds, IS are spitting less damage per salvo at typically lower rates. Both IS and Clan have more spread to their missile weapons than before. Armor quirks and skill tree exacerbate it all.

On both sides, 'Mechs are more sluggish and thus less enjoyable to drive.

[Kin3ticX]

Damnedtroll, on 10 August 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

Probably will get booed with my comment but for me, to buff TTK and removing most of the problems (?) from laser boating and high alpha would be:

1) nerfing heat capacity... hit everyone, but a little bit more the high damage low tonnage clan weapons boating.
2) diminish top speed while hot like a pie... yep you will need to pay more attention to Heat.
3) make the reticle move up and down like it was in mw3 while speeding. Following the mech footstep. Yep no headshot at 600m at 100kph with that and a lot more spreading.

For the rest I like the game, lurms are not a problem, rarely die from it but it make you duck for cover. Good support weapon.

NB: The only addition I would like would be dedicated melee mech with hatchet like Hatchetman, axeman and Berserker.

TTK is probably too high. Adding more TTK would just make players even more likely to B-line into a 1vs12 and get insta-gibbed anyways. (sort of like what happens to really bad players that get 4 respawns in Fraction Play) More TTK doesn't do any good if you just suicide yourself into a firing line over and over.

To me, the people wanting more TTK are the ones that read Sarna where it says mech duels are supposed last for hours which is cool and all but it doesn't help MWO one bit.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2018 - 03:06 PM, said:

That doesn't make sense. How you do balance for lack of player skill or understanding of how the game works? How can you even derive what is and isn't balanced in the underhive?

The most important factor in the lower end of play has nothing to do with balance, and everything to do with fun.

Hey, i was just trying to compromise with PGI. But if you're getting wrecked so much in the bottom because of the top. How fun is that?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 August 2018 - 03:20 PM.

[SilentScreamer]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 August 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

On both sides, 'Mechs are more sluggish and thus less enjoyable to drive.

"Sluggish" heavies/assaults helps keep "squishy" lights/mediums alive.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2018 - 03:16 PM, said:

Hey, i was just trying to compromise with PGI. But if you're getting wrecked so much in the bottom because of the top. How fun is that?

Again though, how can you say you are getting wrecked because of balance when those players don't have understanding of potentially even the fundamentals of how to play MWO? That's why there is a problem with trying to balance by lower tiers and why the important thing is more of fun. Generally if a player is getting wrecked in lower tiers, it is because of either bad play (standing still while you drill their CT) or bad game mechanics (LRMs). Sure if there are giga-alphas running around that are terrorizing the lower tiers, maybe the upper ends of alphas need to be reigned in a bit and their DPS increased to compensate, but I don't think that is really happening often especially given how powerful dakka is in the lower tiers.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 August 2018 - 03:32 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

Again though, how can you say you are getting wrecked because of balance when those players don't have understanding of potentially even the fundamentals of how to play MWO?

Why does it matter, are you having fun as a noob? Don't get me wrong, I don't like balancing by potato, but that's what PGI wanted, don't make this my problem.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

That's why there is a problem with trying to balance by lower tiers and why the important thing is more of fun. Generally if a player is getting wrecked in lower tiers, it is because of either bad play (standing still while you drill their CT) or bad game mechanics (LRMs).

Sure, again PGI.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 August 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

Sure if there are giga-alphas running around that are terrorizing the lower tiers, maybe the upper ends of alphas need to be reigned in a bit and their DPS increased to compensate, but I don't think that is really happening often especially given how powerful dakka is in the lower tiers.

Again, PGI.

All i did is asked them to change their focus from something exclusive to the low-tier, to the mid-tier where it kind of encompasses both low tier and high tier.

How they do it is not my concern or responsibility.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 August 2018 - 03:39 PM.

[kuma8877]

Kin3ticX, on 10 August 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:

TTK is probably too high. Adding more TTK would just make players even more likely to B-line into a 1vs12 and get insta-gibbed anyways. (sort of like what happens to really bad players that get 4 respawns in Fraction Play) More TTK doesn't do any good if you just suicide yourself into a firing line over and over.

To me, the people wanting more TTK are the ones that read Sarna where it says mech duels are supposed last for hours which is cool and all but it doesn't help MWO one bit.

In a general sense, I personally find TTK to be pretty good. As a mostly light pilot, I know it's going to be a bit of a grind if I decide to go after the heavier set on the field (I'm not much of a backstabber) but it's never unreasonable if terrain allows me that fight. On the flip side, I don't ever really find that I die too quickly even in mechs with tissue paper for armor, unless I do something stupid. The only way I can see extending TTK a bit and still being fun, is to spread some base agility around again and not have the games lull into too much sluggishness.

[Chris Lowrey]

Kin3ticX, on 10 August 2018 - 03:12 PM, said:

To me, the people wanting more TTK are the ones that read Sarna where it says mech duels are supposed last for hours which is cool and all but it doesn't help MWO one bit.

I never understood that myself since even in TT, each turn is supposed to be a rough equivalent of a 10 second time period, and you can usually focus down a 'Mech in 4-5 turns depending on the 'Mechs involved with "Average" Pilots. Even less once Advanced / Clan tech or elite / Ace pilots start to get involved.