157 replies to this topic

[John Bronco]

Well I do have an MS in math, though I've never claimed to be good at it. So you're just gonna big time us and not explain the problem?

Edit - I just read your earlier post and agree with the spirit of it, yet practically I still see using the current match score as an improvement generally. I just don't think PGI is going to rejigger ms at this point.

Edited by BlaizerP, 09 January 2019 - 06:31 PM.

[Nightbird]

Already explained it here, TL:DR: with more data can predict how much to weigh each performance metric to determine player skill

https://mwomercs.com...and-suggestion/

[Wil McCullough]

HammerMaster, on 09 January 2019 - 10:36 AM, said:

I came for BattleTech and Lore.
I wan't more BattleTech and Lore.
Keep pushing Lore and us away because you know so much better.
PGI just gave me a way to stay away from you with its MW5.
Do you wan't less people to engage in battles with? Because that's how you end up with less people to battle with.

Lore is a terrible way to balance things. Because the lore is imbalanced as heck. In lore, your shiny new assault mech can get taken down in an instant with through-armor crits. In lore, mgs deal as much damage as ac2s. In lore, only omnimechs can change loadouts and inner sphere mechs get splattered by superior clan tech. If you go by tt behavior, every weapon is flppd and every weapon has a 10sec cooldown.

Adhering to lore is the best way to ruin the game. Be careful what you ask for. Cos if we go full lore, what you're looking at is the piranha with 12x heatless ac2s (that's ppfld), with 12x the chance to take out assaults in a single alpha.

[Mr Andersson]

I want to touch on another subject discussed in the podcast, namely LRMs. I think it deserves a discussion that doesn't deteriorate into, well, you know what I am talking about.

I am one of those who neither hates nor loves LRMs. I think they are an important part of MWO (or any other Mechwarrior game for that matter), both from a lore standpoint and from a game mechanics one. Indirect fire is such a fundamental part of warfare that it makes sense to include it in military games, even if MWO is not really a simulator.

But I do see two potential problems with LRMs, as they function in the game right now.

Firstly, they need to be balanced. And, since they are a low skill weapon type (*), they need to be balanced in a different way than most other weapon types. If they would, for example, be a good weapon at the higher levels of play, they would rule supreme in the lower tiers, where people don't have the skill to effectively counter them. Thus, I think they should be in a place where they basically don't see play at all at the higher tiers. Just like they were before the september patch.

Secondly, when boated to the extreme, LRMs can become a huge negative play experience. I don't think anyone has a problem with facing one or two 2xLRM15 mechs. But when the enemy team contains five Supernovas (as shown in the podcast), or similar builds, and you play on Polar Highlands, no one is going to enjoy the match.
One solution off the top of my head is to limit the number of tubes on each team. That would require another parameter to be added to the matchmaker, though, and I don't know if PGI are so keen on that.
Another solution is to counter boating more effectively. There are many different ways this could be done. But my point is that monstrosities like that Supernova should not be viable.


(*) This comes up all the time. People have different views on it. I am not saying LRMs require NO skill to use. I am saying they require significantly LESS skill than most other weapon types.

[Captain Caveman DE]

Mr Andersson, on 10 January 2019 - 04:42 AM, said:

I want to touch on another subject discussed in the podcast, namely LRMs. I think it deserves a discussion that doesn't deteriorate into, well, you know what I am talking about.

I am one of those who neither hates nor loves LRMs. I think they are an important part of MWO (or any other Mechwarrior game for that matter), both from a lore standpoint and from a game mechanics one. Indirect fire is such a fundamental part of warfare that it makes sense to include it in military games, even if MWO is not really a simulator.

But I do see two potential problems with LRMs, as they function in the game right now.

Firstly, they need to be balanced. And, since they are a low skill weapon type (*), they need to be balanced in a different way than most other weapon types. If they would, for example, be a good weapon at the higher levels of play, they would rule supreme in the lower tiers, where people don't have the skill to effectively counter them. Thus, I think they should be in a place where they basically don't see play at all at the higher tiers. Just like they were before the september patch.

Secondly, when boated to the extreme, LRMs can become a huge negative play experience. I don't think anyone has a problem with facing one or two 2xLRM15 mechs. But when the enemy team contains five Supernovas (as shown in the podcast), or similar builds, and you play on Polar Highlands, no one is going to enjoy the match.
One solution off the top of my head is to limit the number of tubes on each team. That would require another parameter to be added to the matchmaker, though, and I don't know if PGI are so keen on that.
Another solution is to counter boating more effectively. There are many different ways this could be done. But my point is that monstrosities like that Supernova should not be viable.


(*) This comes up all the time. People have different views on it. I am not saying LRMs require NO skill to use. I am saying they require significantly LESS skill than most other weapon types.

more on it later, but I think a big part of the lurm-problem is the maps themselves; lurms are highly situational; pretty meh on solaris or river, easymode on caustic and polar, for example*.
some cover (or hey: weather-effects like snowstorms or -something-) on polar etc would bring them to a more consistant level.

PGI buffed lurms 3 times in a big way the last few months; so much that they're srsly overperforming on maps with little cover. and they're not gonna roll those buffs back, ofc. so more cover would be an alternate route to go, imo.


*so easy that faction matches on both maps mean "lurm to death or get lurmed to death" nowadays, which is both kinda lame and way less fun than a proper fight we had there 1-2 years ago.

[HammerMaster]

Wil McCullough, on 09 January 2019 - 10:17 PM, said:

Lore is a terrible way to balance things. Because the lore is imbalanced as heck. In lore, your shiny new assault mech can get taken down in an instant with through-armor crits. In lore, mgs deal as much damage as ac2s. In lore, only omnimechs can change loadouts and inner sphere mechs get splattered by superior clan tech. If you go by tt behavior, every weapon is flppd and every weapon has a 10sec cooldown.

Adhering to lore is the best way to ruin the game. Be careful what you ask for. Cos if we go full lore, what you're looking at is the piranha with 12x heatless ac2s (that's ppfld), with 12x the chance to take out assaults in a single alpha.

You forget pplfd is broken also and needs to go.
No more pinpoint. You have half a fix.
The bloom reticule needs to reemerge.
The elite pundits don't want half the fixes that will make this game better.

Edited by HammerMaster, 10 January 2019 - 10:43 AM.

[Prototelis]

The bloom reticle isn't going to make the game better, its just going to further nerf any fast moving moderately squishy mech.

Its funny when you cry about MUH LOURE but you completely gloss over or ignore every other change that is a net benefit to you.

[HammerMaster]

Prototelis, on 10 January 2019 - 11:27 AM, said:

The bloom reticle isn't going to make the game better, its just going to further nerf any fast moving moderately squishy mech.

Its funny when you cry about MUH LOURE but you completely gloss over or ignore every other change that is a net benefit to you.

Please list the benefits to me and not the community?

Edited by HammerMaster, 10 January 2019 - 11:38 AM.

[Prototelis]

HammerMaster, on 10 January 2019 - 11:38 AM, said:

Please list the benefits to me and not the community?

I'm pretty sure you know that by "you" I meant the community as well as yourself. But hey, cherry picking totally works right? Let me try.

Double armor, lore-based hardpoint system, reconfigurable IS mechs, no down time or waiting period between refits, no repair and rearm, weapon performance consistent with fluff but ignores (most) bad fluff, more ammo per ton, adding torso twist to mechs that lacked it, unique hero mechs some of which lore based, etc

[HammerMaster]

Prototelis, on 10 January 2019 - 11:49 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure you know that by "you" I meant the community as well as yourself. But hey, cherry picking totally works right? Let me try.

Double armor, lore-based hardpoint system, reconfigurable IS mechs, no down time or waiting period between refits, no repair and rearm, weapon performance consistent with fluff but ignores (most) bad fluff, more ammo per ton, adding torso twist to mechs that lacked it, unique hero mechs some of which lore based, etc

Many of these things should be removed.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Matter of fact. All weapons should have a 10 second cool down. LOVE IT.
Yes down times. I called for this many times. Speaking of cherry picking. You must not have read all my posts. As I have asked for these to be removed many times.
You're cherry picking to be argumentative. Thanks.
This is the last GOOD DAY SIR you'll receive. I'm washing my hands of you.

[justcallme A S H]

Protelis - it's literally not worth the time dude. Just ignore and move on. Easiest way to deal those who just don't 'get it'.

Captain Caveman DE, on 10 January 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

more on it later, but I think a big part of the lurm-problem is the maps themselves; lurms are highly situational; pretty meh on solaris or river, easymode on caustic and polar, for example*.
some cover (or hey: weather-effects like snowstorms or -something-) on polar etc would bring them to a more consistant level.

PGI buffed lurms 3 times in a big way the last few months; so much that they're srsly overperforming on maps with little cover. and they're not gonna roll those buffs back, ofc. so more cover would be an alternate route to go, imo.


*so easy that faction matches on both maps mean "lurm to death or get lurmed to death" nowadays, which is both kinda lame and way less fun than a proper fight we had there 1-2 years ago.

I don't see how a snow storm is going to affect a lock on from a mech radar.

I mean unless you bring in some sorta map effect that lowers range but then that really is gonna suck.

If it's vision then that also screws with a bunch of other weapons like AC, PPC, ERL etc.

[LordNothing]

HammerMaster, on 08 January 2019 - 09:44 PM, said:

TOO LONG DIDN'T WATCH.
HATES LRMS.
PSR needs work.
Stuff.

Anyone who continues to state lurm rather than L R M has issue with LRM.
My issue with what you stated is you said Nerf. NOT rework.
It truly needs a ground up redo.

the problem with lerms, er, lrms is the same problem with a lot of weapons in the game. see i like weapons that i can fire right the **** now, as opposed to weapons that fire eventually when some mechanic says i can fire. unfortunately lerms fall into the latter category. i really liked the way lrms worked in living legends. they really nailed the electronic warfare in such a way that lrms werent an easy mode weapon and were instead a teamwork weapon. also tag and narc were significantly more powerful and you had most of your newbs acting as c3 hubs.

Edited by LordNothing, 10 January 2019 - 01:52 PM.

[HammerMaster]

justcallme A S H, on 10 January 2019 - 01:51 PM, said:

Protelis - it's literally not worth the time dude. Just ignore and move on. Easiest way to deal those who just don't 'get it'.

I'm glad you finally chimed in as originally all this was directed to you.
I'll also contend that you sir do not get it.

[Wil McCullough]

HammerMaster, on 10 January 2019 - 10:37 AM, said:

You forget pplfd is broken also and needs to go.
No more pinpoint. You have half a fix.
The bloom reticule needs to reemerge.
The elite pundits don't want half the fixes that will make this game better.

ppfld is lore.

pin-point is lore as well. heck, on tt, you can't even roll laser burns because they deal full damage value to a single location.

there's no such thing as bloom reticle in lore.

you cannot argue to have something in the game because "lore", then want something else when that "lore" becomes inconvenient.

wanna know something else absolutely stupid about the bt lore? acs are grouped into their classes (2, 5, 10, 20) based on the amount of lead they sling down range, not the size of the round. in other words, there's no functional difference between normal acs and lbx in "lore".

[Knuckles OTool]

LolLore. Once your pilot dies in game you have to make a new account

[LT. HARDCASE]

Hey ASH what headphones were you rocking there?

[Wil McCullough]

Knuckles OTool, on 10 January 2019 - 04:42 PM, said:

LolLore. Once your pilot dies in game you have to make a new account

Walks into the open in a spanking new assault mech.

Gets hit by enemy fire. Tis but a scratch.

Fail stability roll!

Mech falls down.

Fail pilot roll!

Pilot falls unconscious.

Gets blown up by concentrated fire while you're a sitting duck.

Pilot dead, remake account.

Can you imagine the rage? Lollore.

Edited by Wil McCullough, 10 January 2019 - 07:34 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

LT. HARDCASE, on 10 January 2019 - 06:33 PM, said:

Hey ASH what headphones were you rocking there?

Hifiman HE400s. Took a long time to run them in, now though, amazing.

[HammerMaster]

#Ash I tried sending a message but was unsuccessful.
I'll just paste here.

I'll just do this here rather than continue to hash it out in unconstructive forum.
You sir are in a unique position to have your input directly to the man's ear.
You have the unique position of your perspective and your accolades.
My issue is that your circle does not include all gameplay.
I have already expressed to you that you have solid ideas but I haven't seen ideas that address gameplay that includes lore in a reasonable fashion .
All weapons should shine in their own way. The LRM issue particularly.
I understand as you said these need to be low effort fixes but at the end of the day the free c3 lockon was failed from the start.
The mini-fix that populated for a few days is a start but needs to be wrangled by who can lock on( in Los, out of Los if target spotted button/tag/narc)and if your out of LOS well it's gonna be a huge gamble on efficacy. In LOS should be faster speed insta-lock and lower arc. (Turrets are non targetable. It can be done)
This is directly to address the parasitic 800 meter sit back game play that ALL of us (meat and potatoes +comp guys) rail against.
All I'm saying is there needs to be an equitable solution that equally addresses balance , usability AND source material.
Again you have the man's ear and ALL of us need to be heard not discounted.
For me as MWO moves more away from source it's just BattleTech wrapper on a no name game.
Thank you for your time sir.

Edit : Will clean up formatting shortly. Working off of phone.

Edited by HammerMaster, 11 January 2019 - 06:04 AM.

[LordNothing]

i dont really consider the mechanics of tt game to be lore. when i think lore i think the fiction, you know the books. and would rather the game follow the books than bt rules with regards to lore.