57 replies to this topic

[Prototelis]

The team arena moba?

Yeah sure that is *totally* role warfare.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 07 October 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

ever heard of overwatch? thats an FPS that has very clearly defined roles.

It also has a whole bunch of heroes that are F-tier.

The thing about OW and other games like it is that they can get away with "gimmicky" MOBA kind of mechanics like healing beams and giant energy shields. Mechwarrior can never do stuff like that, which makes it harder for us to have the same degree of specialization as games like OW.

Also every hero in OW is expected to be able to fight in direct combat, with the one exception of Mercy.

[Shanrak]

Khobai, on 06 October 2018 - 10:50 PM, said:

because its how battletech works

and its how every other mechwarrior game works

MWO is literally the only game in the entire battletech franchise thats different in that regard.

That's not true at all. Many mechwarrior games start you in mediums not lights. Heck in mw4 mercenaries you can salvage a heavy by mission 3 if you go to the right planet. Also they are single player progression games so of course they can't give you the biggest and baddest within the first 2 hours of game play. MWO by it's nature is different, can't compare a multiplayer shooter to single player games.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 07 October 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

It also has a whole bunch of heroes that are F-tier.

The thing about OW and other games like it is that they can get away with "gimmicky" MOBA kind of mechanics like healing beams and giant energy shields. Mechwarrior can never do stuff like that, which makes it harder for us to have the same degree of specialization as games like OW.

Also every hero in OW is expected to be able to fight in direct combat, with the one exception of Mercy.

1) Just because F-Tier heroes are weak doesnt mean they dont have an intended role though. It just means theyre too weak at their intended role to get used. Thats a balance issue. Not a lack of role warfare issue.

2) Nobody said role warfare should detract from combat ability. Thats something YOU fabricated. For example, adding electronic warfare to light mechs does not make light mechs worse at combat. It simply makes them better at electronic warfare. Their combat ability remains unaffected.

3) For arguments sake, lets say lights need a buff. The correct way to buff lights is not to make them more like heavies or assaults by increasing their firepower. The correct way to buff lights is to make them play more like lights. So how is a light supposed to play? Theyre supposed to flank, harass, attack isolated enemies, create distractions, disrupt enemy lines, etc... thats what lights need to be made better at. Conversely, a light is not supposed to be the combat equivalent of a heavy or assault. And thats where role warfare comes in.

Shanrak, on 07 October 2018 - 12:49 PM, said:

That's not true at all. Many mechwarrior games start you in mediums not lights. Heck in mw4 mercenaries you can salvage a heavy by mission 3 if you go to the right planet. Also they are single player progression games so of course they can't give you the biggest and baddest within the first 2 hours of game play. MWO by it's nature is different, can't compare a multiplayer shooter to single player games.

It absolutely is true. In battletech and every other mechwarrior game, lighter mechs are always weaker than heavier mechs. MWO is the only game in the franchise that tries to make lights equal to assaults.

And Ive already explained how the concept of progression is used in many multiplayer shooters and works fine. It worked fine in MWLL for example. Countless multiplayer games start you off in weaker vehicles or weaker characters and let you buy better vehicles and better characters later in the game.

Edited by Khobai, 07 October 2018 - 01:04 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 07 October 2018 - 12:51 PM, said:

2) Nobody said role warfare should detract from combat ability. Thats is something YOU invented. For example, adding electronic warfare to light mechs does not make light mechs worse at combat. It simply makes them better at electronic warfare.

It's pretty strongly implied that buffing light mech "infowar" abilities would preclude them from combat buffs, yes? Or at the bare minimum it would certainly reduce the size of any potential combat buffs. Therefore, it would in fact reduce their combat ability relative to what they could receive if they weren't being pushed into a specialized scout role.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 07 October 2018 - 12:54 PM, said:

It's pretty strongly implied that buffing light mech "infowar" abilities would preclude them from combat buffs, yes? Or at the bare minimum it would certainly reduce the size of any potential combat buffs. Therefore, it would in fact reduce their combat ability relative to what they could receive if they weren't being pushed into a specialized scout role.

the only person whos implied that is you. I have implied nothing of the sort, in fact I have plainly stated otherwise.

and what do you mean by combat buffs? thats a bit broad.

do I think lights should get direct combat buffs? absolutely not. Lights shouldnt be able to stand toe to toe with heavies/assaults for damage or survivability. As such they shouldnt get firepower or survivability buffs.

lights should be specialized at indirect combat/guerilla warfare. harassing, flanking, backstrikes, stealth, distraction, and disruption are the combat tenets that lights should excel at and their combat abilities should be buffed towards that end. IMO proper implementation of electronic warfare is a key part of lights performing in a stealth/distraction/disruption capacity.

lights should be buffed to play more like lights should play. not buffed to play more like heavies play. making lights more like heavies would just make the game even more homogenous and boring. lights should have a completely different playstyle from heavies, but their playstyle should be no less effective or essential.


also having a ticket based respawn system would account for lights being weaker in direct combat by making them cost less comparatively. then there would be more incentive to use lights because deploying in a light would cost less than deploying in a heavy or assault. And the extra speed of lights would be especially useful on a large spread out map with strategic capture assets (like the gamemode I suggested). Lights would see plenty of use in such a gamemode, and because people would actually want to play them, not play them because theyre forced to.

right now the only reason you ever see lights get used in faction warfare is so people can frontload the tonnage on their other three mechs due to the tonnage limit. its not because they actually want to play a light. forcing people to play lights is not the same thing as people actually wanting to play lights.

Edited by Khobai, 07 October 2018 - 01:39 PM.

[BumbaCLot]

Mystere, on 07 October 2018 - 11:49 AM, said:

Play non-stop for 4-5 years then come back with your "suggestion".

Yep another 20:1 post to game ratio guy. Why do I doubt you played more over 2.5 years ago than you do now? I've played 2x more than you in 3 months than you have in 27
Did I strike a nerve?

[Mystere]

BumbaCLot, on 07 October 2018 - 01:55 PM, said:

Yep another 20:1 post to game ratio guy. Why do I doubt you played more over 2.5 years ago than you do now? I've played 2x more than you in 3 months than you have in 27
Did I strike a nerve?

Nope. I just want to see if a 5-year absentee founder can maintain his "hunky-dory, there is nothing wrong, everything is fine" attitude after a few years.

[BumbaCLot]

Mystere, on 07 October 2018 - 03:19 PM, said:

Nope. I just want to see if a 5-year absentee founder can maintain his "hunky-dory, there is nothing wrong, everything is fine" attitude after a few years.

You've been absent from the battlefield for 6 months. But you are still here. What's the point? I left when I quit playing, now I play again so the forums are relevant to me.
Squeezing every drop out of that 4 mechs you bought 7 years ago?

[Y E O N N E]

FupDup, on 07 October 2018 - 12:34 PM, said:

It also has a whole bunch of heroes that are F-tier.

The thing about OW and other games like it is that they can get away with "gimmicky" MOBA kind of mechanics like healing beams and giant energy shields. Mechwarrior can never do stuff like that, which makes it harder for us to have the same degree of specialization as games like OW.

Also every hero in OW is expected to be able to fight in direct combat, with the one exception of Mercy.

I find the OW analogy ironic because even the "clearly defined roles" for each character are being essentially re-written into flavor roles; almost every character in the game has had an overhaul that makes them more universally applicable to a given scenario.

[Khobai]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 October 2018 - 08:08 PM, said:

I find the OW analogy ironic because even the "clearly defined roles" for each character are being essentially re-written into flavor roles; almost every character in the game has had an overhaul that makes them more universally applicable to a given scenario.

of course. and im under no disillusionment about combat being the primary role of mechs. nor do I think role warfare should detract from the combat ability of mechs.

role warfare should simply add viable secondary roles to mechs and differentiate the primary combat roles just enough so that not every weight class plays the same.

At the very least, each weight class should have its own unique skill tree. Having a generic skill tree shared by all four weight classes is extremely boring. And it doesnt help mediums or lights one bit.

I mean its not really fair that a medium has to sink so many points into mobility to gain a meaningful speed/agility advantage over a heavy. While the heavy can just ignore the mobility tree entirely and sink all its points into weapons, survivability, and operations.

Nor is it really fair to ask lights to sink points into the sensor tree at the detriment of the other skill trees.

Thats why we need unique skill trees so each weight class can do what theyre supposed to without being penalized for it. Thats asking for the absolute bare minimum.

Edited by Khobai, 07 October 2018 - 10:51 PM.

[The Mysterious Fox]

narcs need to be rewarded

Edited by The Mysterious Fox, 08 October 2018 - 10:20 AM.

[K O Z A K]

The Mysterious Fox, on 08 October 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

narcs need to be rewarded

it's one of the greatest kept secrets in mwo: they already are

[Mystere]

BumbaCLot, on 07 October 2018 - 07:58 PM, said:

You've been absent from the battlefield for 6 months. But you are still here. What's the point? I left when I quit playing, now I play again so the forums are relevant to me.

That's how boring MWO has become for many of us old timers. We now just drop a few at the start of the month, get bored stiff quickly, and decide to do something else.

Plus, the never-ending buff-nerf cycles going full circle many times over most certainly does not help.

BumbaCLot, on 07 October 2018 - 07:58 PM, said:

Squeezing every drop out of that 4 mechs you bought 7 years ago?

Actually, I've got a whole bunch, including my all-time favorites: 2 Urbanmech K-9's with police lights and sirens running on a loop via a macro.

Edited by Mystere, 08 October 2018 - 11:09 AM.

[BumbaCLot]

Mystere, on 08 October 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

That's how boring MWO has become for many of us old timers. We now just drop a few at the start of the month, get bored stiff quickly, and decide to do something else.

Plus, the never-ending buff-nerf cycles going full circle many times over most certainly does not help.




Actually, I've got a whole bunch, including my all-time favorites: 2 Urbanmech K-9's with police lights and sirens running on a loop via a macro.

Yeah I can totally see how a forum is more fun than playing a video game.

[Daggett]

Ted Wayz, on 07 October 2018 - 08:20 AM, said:

How are "balanced" and "much harder to use" mutually compatible. And why would anyone use how other games get it wrong to defend the imbalance in MWO?

If you think that immensely successful games like Overwatch or DOTA2 "get it wrong", you seem to have a much different taste than millions of players. Those games do most things perfectly right and every game developer would be well-advised to analyze them.

By doing so you will find out that "balanced" and "much harder to use" are totally compatible. You just need to make sure that a perfectly played "hard" character will not dominate perfectly played "easy" characters. A well designed hard character will top out at being about 5% more powerful than a comparable easy character, to reward playing the hard way without breaking balance.

Let's look at an MWO example: Triple UAC2 Dragon vs. Laser-vomit Hellbringer.
The Dragon is much harder to play well than the Hellbringer due to facetime and it's low, vulnerable weapon-arm.

In a 12vs12 QP scenario a mediocre player in the Hellbringer will most probably reach a much better average performance than a mediocre Dragon player. So from an average player's viewpoint, the Dragon is inferior.

But if you put top players behind both mechs i'm pretty sure that there will be not much of an QP performance difference between those mechs, and maybe the Dragon would even perform those 5% i mentioned better. That's because top players like Proton can utilize the Dragons dead side-torso with mouse-look to absorb insane amounts of damage.

That's perfectly fine balance proven by countless other games.

Khobai, on 07 October 2018 - 09:16 AM, said:

nope. if its just a fight between a lone abrams and a lone truck with 2-3 guys with RPGs im gonna have to say the abrams still wins the vast majority of the time. thats not a stretch.

its a friggin main battle tank. do you really wanna be those guys in a truck fighting a main battle tank. no you dont. lmao.

its same thing in battletech/MWO. A 20T light mech should not have a chance against a 100T mech. there is simply no way to justify that from a logical standpoint.

When idiots carrying RPGs trying to attack an Abrams with a truck on an open field it's not the weapon's fault. Same with light mechs trying to backstab an assault on open terrain that's late to the party due to a disconnect but carrying big arm-mounted ballistics. Chances are high that both die. It's not rare to see light mechs vaporizing because they think a lone assault is always easy prey.

But when you fight at your terms, things look different. A single RPG carried by foot would be a deadly threat to an isolated Abrams within urban environment while the same assault from above is almost helpless when the light mech has enough cover to skirmish from and switch attack-vectors and/or when the assault is distracted by other enemy fire.

The effectiveness of equipment (like tank/mech/weapon) is heavily dictated by the environment. If you choose the wrong environment for your equipment (like open terrain for RPGs) you will have much less success than in an ideal environment. That's why you see so many lurms on Polar...

Edited by Daggett, 09 October 2018 - 10:18 AM.

[Ted Wayz]

Daggett, on 09 October 2018 - 08:57 AM, said:

If you think that immensely successful games like Overwatch or DOTA2 "get it wrong", you seem to have a much different taste than millions of players. Those games do most things perfectly right and every game developer would be well-advised to analyze them.

Hmmm, the example that was quoted referred only to DOTA and then Overwatch gets thrown in! I love it when people change the point of reference in order to get to their point. It's like starting a discussion using MLS as an example then making your point with the Premier League!

But I agree that PGI should analyze other games scoring systems, because that is what this post was about before it became a balancing discussion. But that is partly my fault.

To get back on track the scoring system in MWO needs to be adjusted to reward roles. This doesn't have to be done by punishing behaviours so if someone is really good at killing with a light they could still receive rewards for it. But a player should be able to receive equal or better rewards for playing their role correctly.

Have been able to achieve 250 match scores with under a hundred damage in this game in a light. Could 350, 450 or 500 plus match scores be achieved with that sort of play? Highly doubt it. But you should and it would promote a wider variety of play.

People complain about assaults standing in the rear hurling missiles. What if they received rewards for soaking damage? Maybe that would change.

People complain about assaults being abandoned. What if mediums were rewarded for supporting mechs? Maybe that would change.

You can't complain about behaviors that would be changed by roles in one breath and support the current scoring system in the next. Well you could, but there is a name for that.

[Daggett]

Ted Wayz, on 13 October 2018 - 12:24 PM, said:

Hmmm, the example that was quoted referred only to DOTA and then Overwatch gets thrown in! I love it when people change the point of reference in order to get to their point. It's like starting a discussion using MLS as an example then making your point with the Premier League!

Well, you asked "How are 'balanced' and 'much harder to use' mutually compatible", which in my eyes was a quite generic/abstract question not referring to only DOTA2. So i don't think i changed my point of reference. I simply added another example for a game which is balanced enough that millions play it, but also features characters with very different difficulty levels.
My point applies to all games featuring asymmetrical characters with vastly different skills. No change of reference happened here, both examples refer to the same thing.

Ted Wayz, on 13 October 2018 - 12:24 PM, said:

But I agree that PGI should analyze other games scoring systems, because that is what this post was about before it became a balancing discussion. But that is partly my fault.

To get back on track the scoring system in MWO needs to be adjusted to reward roles. This doesn't have to be done by punishing behaviours so if someone is really good at killing with a light they could still receive rewards for it. But a player should be able to receive equal or better rewards for playing their role correctly.

Have been able to achieve 250 match scores with under a hundred damage in this game in a light. Could 350, 450 or 500 plus match scores be achieved with that sort of play? Highly doubt it. But you should and it would promote a wider variety of play.

People complain about assaults standing in the rear hurling missiles. What if they received rewards for soaking damage? Maybe that would change.

People complain about assaults being abandoned. What if mediums were rewarded for supporting mechs? Maybe that would change.

You can't complain about behaviors that would be changed by roles in one breath and support the current scoring system in the next. Well you could, but there is a name for that.

I'm totally with you, i think that some non-damage activities should be rewarded more too. However i don't think that such measues would change player behaviour much.

Edited by Daggett, 13 October 2018 - 02:27 PM.