178 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

You do realize that an atlas would easily beat an adder prime right?

the battlevalues were super inflated for clan tech

Which is exactly why the BV argument kinda sucks. There are tons of cases that I can cherry-pick to show how stupidly over-valued or under-valued mechs are both BV 1.0 and 2.0. Not just between factions but also within the same faction.

Edited by FupDup, 19 May 2019 - 03:24 PM.

[FLG 01]

I may add that if MWO were to adhere to TT rules, we could easily end with a situation where almost everybody runs Clan 100t Mechs. I don't see what is fun about this.

Also, it would not help anyone who struggles against Lights, aka the weakest class. They'd lose just as much as before, the difference being that they'd have to shift the blame for their failings once more. In 90% of the cases, the problem is the pilot.

Sorry to be blunt, but more TT rules are not going to help.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 19 May 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

Which is exactly why the BV argument kinda sucks. There are tons of cases that I can cherry-pick to show how stupidly over-valued or under-valued mechs are both BV 1.0 and 2.0. Not just between factions but also within the same faction.

nope. BV works fine in most cases.

youre just picking out exceptions and presenting them as the rule. Thats not how it works.

theyre exceptions for a reason. Could BV be improved upon? Absolutely. But for the most part it worked.

at least until clan tech screwed things up but Fasa themselves admitted clan tech was a huge mistake. But for the IS mechs BV works fine as a general indicator of how good or bad a mech is.

Quote

I may add that if MWO were to adhere to TT rules, we could easily end with a situation where almost everybody runs Clan 100t Mechs. I don't see what is fun about this.

Not really because you wouldnt be able to start in a 100t mech. Youd have to start in a light and upgrade to a heavier mech as the game progresssed. Just like in MWLL.

And if your 100 ton mech died youd be right back to piloting a light. Because 100t mechs would cost a lot and wouldnt be instantly replaceable.

Edited by Khobai, 19 May 2019 - 03:41 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 03:36 PM, said:

nope. BV works fine in most cases.

youre just picking out exceptions and presenting them as the rule. Thats not how it works.

theyre exceptions for a reason. Could BV be improved upon? Absolutely. But for the most part it worked.

"Since 2012 Line Developer Herbert A. Beas II repeatedly said that he was considering changing the BV system into a much simpler system, and that the developers were tentatively exploring various ideas. However, the overhaul of the BV system, often called "BV 3", has not materialized. In a BattleChat on 26 January 2013 Herbert Beas said that the current plan was to patch BV 2 and give it "one more chance" with an upcoming set of errata; in a later BattleChat (20 April 2013) he remarked that they had "put the brakes on the new BV system to see how well received the latest errata holds." He also remarked that redoing BV would neccessitate a rework on the then-upcoming Alpha Strike ruleset."

The language of "giving it one more chance" doesn't sound all that successful.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 19 May 2019 - 03:40 PM, said:

"Since 2012 Line Developer Herbert A. Beas II repeatedly said that he was considering changing the BV system into a much simpler system, and that the developers were tentatively exploring various ideas. However, the overhaul of the BV system, often called "BV 3", has not materialized. In a BattleChat on 26 January 2013 Herbert Beas said that the current plan was to patch BV 2 and give it "one more chance" with an upcoming set of errata; in a later BattleChat (20 April 2013) he remarked that they had "put the brakes on the new BV system to see how well received the latest errata holds." He also remarked that redoing BV would neccessitate a rework on the then-upcoming Alpha Strike ruleset."

The language of "giving it one more chance" doesn't sound all that successful.

The problem with BV isnt that it didnt work. Its that it was damn overcomplicated. If you actually read what you quoted they wanted to change it to simplify it. Specifically for Alphastrike which is itself a simplified set of rules for Battletech.

And I already said the BV system could be improved upon. So basically youre just reinforcing what Ive already said.

I believe a simplified rudimentary point system could also work in MWO. An atlas for example should not be treated the same as an annihilator despite them both being 100 tons. If there was a rudimentary point system an atlas could be worth 18-19 points while the annihilator is worth 20 points. Matchmaker could add up the point values of all mechs on a team in order to balance the composition of both teams. Despite the simplification, the overall concept is still the same as BV though.

And that would extend to helping lighter mechs as well. All mechs would be assigned a point value that reflects their power level. Lights and mediums would no longer be burdered with having to compete with assaults because their lower point values would reflect their lower power levels.

Quote

The language of "giving it one more chance" doesn't sound all that successful.

How do you figure? If it was actually as unsuccessful as you claim they wouldnt be giving it another chance. The very fact theyre giving it another chance indicates it works most of the time. The fact they scrapped BV3 also indicates to me that BV2 worked better than BV3. Lastly they stated their main concern was that BV2 was too complicated. they wanted something simpler for Alphastrike because it was a simplified version of Battletech. They clearly stated the main issue they had is that it was overcomplicated for alphastrike not that it didnt work.

Edited by Khobai, 19 May 2019 - 04:06 PM.

[FLG 01]

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 03:36 PM, said:

Not really because you wouldnt be able to start in a 100t mech. Youd have to start in a light and upgrade to a heavier mech as the game progresssed. Just like in MWLL.

And if your 100 ton mech died youd be right back to piloting a light. Because 100t mechs would cost a lot and wouldnt be instantly replaceable.

So we'd end up with a situation where everybodys want to and, frankly, needs to pilot Clan 100t Mechs because otherwise they are cannon fodder for the veteran players, adding a massive technological advantage to the skill gap between the groups.
And then you'd have players hanging back even more out of fear losing their precious assault. Because if MWO needs one thing, it is more passivity and conservative playstyle.

And again, the people who struggle against the weakest Mechs right now would be nothing more than cannon fodder in that scenario, too. They'd never progress to the assault class in the first place.

This is a horrible scenario. I don't know how MWLL is doing, I don't know it, but I cannot see positives here. ...well perhaps one positive aspect: it might create the funny situation that the bad players ask for a light buff since they never progress.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 03:44 PM, said:

The problem with BV isnt that it didnt work. Its that it was damn overcomplicated. If you actually read what you quoted they wanted to change it to simplify it. Specifically for Alphastrike which is itself a simplified set of rules for Battletech.

And I already said the BV system could be improved upon. So basically youre just reinforcing what Ive already said.

I believe a simplified rudimentary point system could also work in MWO. An atlas for example should not be treated the same as an annihilator despite them both being 100 tons. If there was a rudimentary point system an atlas could be worth 18-19 points while the annihilator is worth 20 points. Matchmaker could add up the point values of all mechs on a team in order to balance the composition of both teams. Despite the simplification, the overall concept is still the same as BV though.

That's gonna run into issues real quick because most pieces of equipment have different levels of effectiveness depending on what you equip them on to. Like, an XL300 is great for a Jenner but useless on an Atlas. Or Lurms, Gauss, etc. also heavily vary based on which mech is using them. Would stripping armor from your head, arms, and legs reduce your BV? Also consider the baseline agility of the mech. And what about the skill tree? So many layers.

Only way around that would be to not factor in the loadout at all like Solaris, but then the point system would be useless because bad builds can utterly break normally good mechs and vice-versa.

Edited by FupDup, 19 May 2019 - 03:54 PM.

[Khobai]

FupDup, on 19 May 2019 - 03:54 PM, said:

That's gonna run into issues real quick because most pieces of equipment have different levels of effectiveness depending on what you equip them on to. Like, an XL300 is great for a Jenner but useless on an Atlas. Or Lurms, Gauss, etc. also heavily vary based on which mech is using them. Would stripping armor from your head, arms, and legs reduce your BV? Also consider the baseline agility of the mech. And what about the skill tree? So many layers.

Only way around that would be to not factor in the loadout at all like Solaris, but then the point system would be useless because bad builds can utterly break normally good mechs and vice-versa.

Um youre wrong. because right now the game has nothing to balance mech compositions on teams. NOTHING. zero. zilch.

Of course its going to run into issues. All matchmakers make compromises. But were working on the assumption that having something would still be better than nothing.

And you dont need to factor in every possible loadout. You only need to factor in the upper end of what each mech is capable of. An annihilator on the upper end is better than an Atlas on the upper end so the Annihilator should be worth more. Yeah people could deliberately gimp their loadouts to screw up the system, but you have to assume most people arnt going to do that and are going to run decent loadouts.

FupDup, on 19 May 2019 - 03:54 PM, said:

but then the point system would be useless because bad builds can utterly break normally good mechs and vice-versa.

thats like saying an ELO skill matchmaker is pointless because a skilled player could decide to be afk in a game.

you have to assume theyre not going to be afk.

just like you have to assume people wont deliberately run gimped builds.

Edited by Khobai, 19 May 2019 - 04:16 PM.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

And you dont need to factor in loadouts. You only need to factor in the upper end of what each mech is capable of. An annihilator on the upper end is better than an Atlas on the upper end so the Annihilator should be worth more. Yeah people could deliberately gimp their loadouts to screw up the system, but you have to assume most people arnt going to do that and are going to run decent loadouts.

I see too many LRM Atlases to make such an assumption.

[Khobai]

ok but instead of an LRM atlas being treated the same as an annihilator on the other team it would now be worth less than annihilator. So its still an improvement over the current system.

Right now, if you have an LRM atlas on your team and the other team gets an annihilator your team is screwed.

But if an atlas is worth 18-19 points compared to a 20 point annihilator, your team now gets an extra 1-2 points you didnt get before.

Its something. And thats better than nothing. And right now we have NOTHING.

So yeah theres definitely value in implementing a rudimentary point system in MWO to help balance the mech compositions of the two teams.

Edited by Khobai, 19 May 2019 - 04:25 PM.

[Jman5]

GuardDogg, on 18 May 2019 - 07:30 PM, said:

In MWO, it is a lot different. I always had the thought, to pilot a locust (or any light mech) is to do reconnaissance for team, take bases, destroy assets. Never for combat, only if another light comes into contact.

The problem is that at the end of the day that just isn't very fun. It's not fun to sit on caps, sit in a circle, run batteries, and press the R key.

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 12:00 PM, said:

IMO the problem is the gamemodes themselves that try to equate lights to assaults.

Lights were never meant to equal Assaults. Thats decidedly unbattletech.

Instead Battletech is supposed to have a progression with lights at the bottom and assaults at the top.

Thats why MWLL was a better game because it didnt try to make lights something they werent supposed to be. Instead it had a resource based gamemode where you bought mechs during matches and lights were cheaper and assaults were more expensive.

Its just one more example of how PGI screwed up this game.

This is my biggest beef with Battletech and many previous mechwarrior games. The way they make everything a stupid progression toward 100 tonners. I like playing light mechs. Their speed and agility are really fun and it would bum me out if they were made worse in combat than they already are. I do not care what some people in the 1980s thought light mechs should be in a tabletop game where you control multiple units. In my mind, light mechs should be powerful in their own unique and game changing way. I hate the idea that light mechs should be nothing more than a stepping stone, or some cost-saving alternative.

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 04:09 PM, said:

Um youre wrong. because right now the game has nothing to balance mech compositions on teams. NOTHING. zero. zilch.

In solo queue weight classes are matched 1:1. If one team has 3 assaults, the other team has 3 assaults.

Edited by Jman5, 19 May 2019 - 05:22 PM.

[Xeno Phalcon]

<.< count em boys.

[Khobai]

Jman5, on 19 May 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

The problem is that at the end of the day that just isn't very fun. It's not fun to sit on caps, sit in a circle, run batteries, and press the R key.



This is my biggest beef with Battletech and many previous mechwarrior games. The way they make everything a stupid progression toward 100 tonners. I like playing light mechs. Their speed and agility are really fun and it would bum me out if they were made worse in combat than they already are. I do not care what some people in the 1980s thought light mechs should be in a tabletop game where you control multiple units. In my mind, light mechs should be powerful in their own unique and game changing way. I hate the idea that light mechs should be nothing more than a stepping stone, or some cost-saving alternative.




In solo queue weight classes are matched 1:1. If one team has 3 assaults, the other team has 3 assaults.

yes but it could put three atlases on one team and three annihilators on the other team. that isnt balanced.

[ShiverMeRivets]

Jman5, on 19 May 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

The problem is that at the end of the day that just isn't very fun. It's not fun to sit on caps, sit in a circle, run batteries, and press the R key.

Absolutely true, but there is a very simple solution to that, that requires no delicated balancing - don’t play light mechs.

There are some hidden assertions by many players that light mechs must be in this game, they must be made equal to the other classes, and players should choose to play them as often as the other classes.
All 3 assertions are wrong.

Starting from the last, I see no problem that one class is less popular than another - this is not social justice. Don’t like a mech? Play another. The mech will not be insulted by you shunning it. You could not play it becuse it is underpowered, because it is ugly, or because you do not like its playstyle - regardless if it is 20 tonner or 60 tonner.

Classes should not be balanced to anything. Individual mech, perhaps, but still this is not mandatory. There are plenty of sub par mechs and the game is not broken by them not being popular. Sure, a veriaty of equal choices is preferable, but not everything must be as powerful as the others.

Finally, that we must have mechs down to 20 tons. Why? Why not 10 ton mechs? Or 1 ton mechs? Why not be able to play an elf ranger, or a friggin shark with an extended range medium laser beam?
Why?
There is NO real reason why! The game caters to some audience. Most of this audience expects to play heavily armored, slow monstrosity of machines against similar machines without having to contend with elven rangers, or lasered sharks that were “balanced” to fight them. Others absolutely would love to destroy 100 ton assults with an elven bow and ruin the fun of the formers. The game can exist without the elves, the sharks, or the 20 ton mechs. The game can exist with them in the game but being completely useless and not played as well.

Edited by ShiverMeRivets, 20 May 2019 - 12:38 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Topicstarter - zero matches played in a light for more than half a year.
Rock OP, paper is fine. Signed - scissors.

[ImperialKnight]

Derrek Weston, on 18 May 2019 - 07:23 AM, said:

Right now, the game reminds me of how the game was within its first year or two of release, in that the light mechs are ruining games. Swarm tactics by small, fast moving, mechs are extremely difficult to deal with and are very forgiving for the light mech due to how game mechanics work (who needs lots of hit points when you can dodge most incoming damage). It is also no a very fun gameplay for those on the receiving side of it. Why would someone subject themselves to being someone else's game content when they have little chance of countering attacks from these nimble mechs?

If this is the kind of gameplay you want MWO to be devs, the disregard the post and carry on. However, I'm pretty certain it ill not lure many new players into the fold and will cause players like myself to just go find fun in another game. If this is not the kind of gameplay you are aiming for then do something about it already. Inaction is having the same effect as the above scenario.

Just my 2 cents

That's right! We should go back to the good old days where Lights were half the current size and had lag armor shielding them from damage. Damn balancing ruining the game for non Light pilots

[LordNothing]

light mechs are not imbalanced, light pilots are.

joking aside i saw a lot of idiots durring the last event that didnt seem to know that light mechs need to keep moving. its like if every time you stopped your dire wolf you took all your armor off. speed is life.

Edited by LordNothing, 20 May 2019 - 02:15 AM.

[GoodTry]

Personally I tend to think that lights are in a pretty good spot.

You can do really well and carry a team. You can absolutely tear apart out of position assaults and slow heavies. You can basically drive the direction of matches by constantly showing up where the other team isn't expecting. You can make them pay for balling up by using your speed to drop perfect UAVs and strikes.

But you better watch out for streak boats, or good players with gauss/LBX, or very good players with ERPPCs. Any of those can take you out almost instantly.

All told, yes, they are powerful, but only for people who are good at playing them, and even then there are still lots of counters. It's pretty balanced IMO.

[Jman5]

Khobai, on 19 May 2019 - 08:37 PM, said:

yes but it could put three atlases on one team and three annihilators on the other team. that isnt balanced.

I think it's a negligible difference. The only issue is that better players are more likely to be in the Annihilator than the Atlas. That's the problem with a lot of meta-balance discussion. In order to make a good comparison you have to control for skill, practice time in mech, and practice time with weapon loadout.

ShiverMeRivets, on 20 May 2019 - 12:34 AM, said:

Absolutely true, but there is a very simple solution to that, that requires no delicated balancing - don’t play light mechs.

There are some hidden assertions by many players that light mechs must be in this game, they must be made equal to the other classes, and players should choose to play them as often as the other classes.
All 3 assertions are wrong.

Starting from the last, I see no problem that one class is less popular than another - this is not social justice. Don’t like a mech? Play another. The mech will not be insulted by you shunning it. You could not play it becuse it is underpowered, because it is ugly, or because you do not like its playstyle - regardless if it is 20 tonner or 60 tonner.

Classes should not be balanced to anything. Individual mech, perhaps, but still this is not mandatory. There are plenty of sub par mechs and the game is not broken by them not being popular. Sure, a veriaty of equal choices is preferable, but not everything must be as powerful as the others.

All mechs should be strong, viable, and fun in their own way. Right now, I think many lights are fun and pretty good despite being a bit underpowered in the grand scheme of things. Re-balancing the game so ~1/4 of mechs are just complete trash is unacceptable. It is not only a gigantic waste of time on the part of the developers to create assets that are DoA, but it's a terrible design philosophy.

Asymetric balance is what the goal should be. You don't make the Locust as tanky as an Atlas to balance it. You make the Locust strong in its own way so that it's really good at things the Atlas is not. Those things need to be valuable and fun.

Quote

Finally, that we must have mechs down to 20 tons. Why? Why not 10 ton mechs? Or 1 ton mechs?

Because 20 tons is essentially the lower limit of a mech that is still combat-viable against other mechs. Because the game's engine and netcode has trouble handling things going faster than what we already have in the game. Are there any canon 15 ton combat mechs in our current timeline?

Quote

Why not be able to play an elf ranger, or a friggin shark with an extended range medium laser beam?
Why?
There is NO real reason why!

Um, because as far as I am aware there are no Elf Rangers and pilotable sharks with lasers in the Battletech universe and this is a game focused on mech combat.

Quote

The game caters to some audience. Most of this audience expects to play heavily armored, slow monstrosity of machines against similar machines without having to contend with elven rangers, or lasered sharks that were “balanced” to fight them. Others absolutely would love to destroy 100 ton assults with an elven bow and ruin the fun of the formers. The game can exist without the elves, the sharks, or the 20 ton mechs. The game can exist with them in the game but being completely useless and not played as well.

Trying to equate Light mechs with Elven Rangers makes no sense. Light mechs are an integral component of the battletech universe. Elf Rangers are not. Saying we should just not have small mechs in the game, or that it's fine if they are useless in combat because you seem to not like dealing with them is equally dumb. They're in the game. Plenty of people like playing them. PGI has spent many months creating and balancing them. Therefore they should continue working toward making these mechs fun and viable in their own unique way.

[Prototelis]

Light mechs are not in any way equivalent to assaults in this game.

Where the **** do you people get these ideas?