110 replies to this topic

[Feral Clown]

Karl Streiger, on 29 August 2019 - 11:14 PM, said:

Wow, its so bad with MWO that you need to play with yourself?

Look I can do that for ages to come... but BTT: the TAG is the most powerful energy weapon.

That's what you are going with??? Tag??? Geez, you must think yourself so smart but what a lonely club.

Thank you though for continuing to troll, not saying anything remotely intelligent, and completely proving my point about what you are.

[Karl Streiger]

Feral Clown, on 29 August 2019 - 11:21 PM, said:

Thank you though for continuing to troll, not saying anything remotely intelligent, and completely proving my point about what you are.

Usually it needs two to continuing but - whom I tell this you have sooooooo many alt-accounts you totally know what you are speaking of - and no means to prove it other than your word.

Of course there was a time where mods and CMs did care and did hunt down and banned alt-accounts... so be happy with them

[Feral Clown]

Karl Streiger, on 29 August 2019 - 11:27 PM, said:

Usually it needs two to continuing but - whom I tell this you have sooooooo many alt-accounts you totally know what you are speaking of - and no means to prove it other than your word.

Of course there was a time where mods and CMs did care and did hunt down and banned alt-accounts... so be happy with them

Except I have proof and there are folks that know about my other accounts, just not you.

You are showing your ignorance again about alt accounts as well, which isn't surprising since you haven't the slightest clue about anything related to the game apparently.

I will give you this gift though, you are allowed to have as many accounts as you want. However you are only allowed to use one of them on the forums which they are even lax about that as long as you don't use one to circumvent moderation.

Shine on you crazy diamond though, this **** is gold.

Oh shoot forgot, you deviated from topic again, so there's that...guess I really got under your skin to put this much time into me though. Kinda flattering, like a fan almost.

Edited by Feral Clown, 29 August 2019 - 11:37 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

No just helping you to rise your post count...
right - about those alt-accounts and forum moderation....

Also I'm genuinely interest how much it takes this time for a mod to show up and close that topic.
Maybe I should use some buzzwords....

[Feral Clown]

Karl Streiger, on 30 August 2019 - 12:43 AM, said:

No just helping you to rise your post count...
right - about those alt-accounts and forum moderation....

Also I'm genuinely interest how much it takes this time for a mod to show up and close that topic.
Maybe I should use some buzzwords....

Don't need the help but thanks fanboy.

Alt accounts are none of your business.

None of what you said has to do with the topic and now you are openly saying you are trying to derail the thread....

I'd report you for your violations if I cared.

Instead I am here to help! So tell us what you think about the article the OP posted?

[Karl Streiger]

Feral Clown, on 30 August 2019 - 11:15 AM, said:

Instead I am here to help! So tell us what you think about the article the OP posted?

LOL WUT? I see what you did there.

For what it is worth:
Need to write a wall of text to describe the issue.... consider it as not worth the afford.

But the TLDR, you can not compare MWO with CoD MW and the asymetric weapon balance because the game mechanic is completely different.
If you want asymetric weapon balance you need clear/solid roles and a mechanic that support that roles. A sniper weapon that fires at fast as a short range weapon -> bad (PPC, ERLL++)
a sniper weapon that does not kill with few hits -> bad (Gauss...
a damage dealer weapon that does not kill with few hits -> bad (AC20, SRMs....
small weapon that deal as much damage or even more than bigger ones -> bad
stuff that i have forgotten to mention -> bad

But here is a question for you:
do you think that it is ok that the smaller weapons of a family have shorter "beam" time and faster reloads?

[Feral Clown]

Karl Streiger, on 30 August 2019 - 02:12 AM, said:

Feral Clown, on 30 August 2019 - 11:15 AM, said:

Instead I am here to help! So tell us what you think about the article the OP posted?

LOL WUT? I see what you did there.

For what it is worth:
Need to write a wall of text to describe the issue.... consider it as not worth the afford.

But the TLDR, you can not compare MWO with CoD MW and the asymetric weapon balance because the game mechanic is completely different.
If you want asymetric weapon balance you need clear/solid roles and a mechanic that support that roles. A sniper weapon that fires at fast as a short range weapon -> bad (PPC, ERLL++)
a sniper weapon that does not kill with few hits -> bad (Gauss...
a damage dealer weapon that does not kill with few hits -> bad (AC20, SRMs....
small weapon that deal as much damage or even more than bigger ones -> bad
stuff that i have forgotten to mention -> bad

But here is a question for you:
do you think that it is ok that the smaller weapons of a family have shorter "beam" time and faster reloads?

That was almost coherent! Thank you for your cooperation. Have a wonderful day.

[East Indy]

The quote dev has to know his stuff, so he sounds taken out of context.

Balanced does not equal same. Same is rock-paper-scissors. Balanced is Halo 2 multiplayer.

Not-balanced means one practical choice, which means same; which means boring.

Chris Lowrey erred on megaquirks but he tamed laserbarf and fit indirect fire into a useful yet counterable niche (in spite of my skepticism for the latter). Today, players can choose from as many or more playstyles than at any point in the game: three varieties of dakka, three or four varieties of splat, pulse knife-fighting, streaks with and without poptarts, PPC or Gauss sniping, MG boats, missile boats, laser boats.

[Y E O N N E]

Halo 2 multiplayer was not balanced at all my dude.

[Mumuharra]

The best time in this game was when Clans wave 1 arrived and IS received their powerful quirks.
So many mechs worth to play because they performed so differently ( lbx shotgun, srm4 raven, Timbi and Dire at their peak and so on).
Oh how I loved this game.
But then the terror of „balancing“ startet and the fun faded away.
But **** happens.

[Nesutizale]

Yah they missed the point of creating a system where every weapon is valid but different in playstyle. Same goes for the mechs.
Makeing everything to similar was a bad idea.

Also I never quite understood the resistance to have 5v4 or 12v10 gameplay. The should at least have tested that. I think I remember that it had something to do with the Matchmaker, that it was only possible to have even teams? Still its a pice of software, it should be changeable.

[Mystere]

Nesutizale, on 01 September 2019 - 03:27 AM, said:

Yah they missed the point of creating a system where every weapon is valid but different in playstyle. Same goes for the mechs.
Makeing everything to similar was a bad idea.

But that is exactly what many players demanded, whether they now admit it or not.

Nesutizale, on 01 September 2019 - 03:27 AM, said:

Also I never quite understood the resistance to have 5v4 or 12v10 gameplay. The should at least have tested that. I think I remember that it had something to do with the Matchmaker, that it was only possible to have even teams? Still its a pice of software, it should be changeable.

Again, many players demanded equal teams. The countless matchmaker threads are proof of that.

Edited by Mystere, 01 September 2019 - 03:52 AM.

[Nesutizale]

Mystere, on 01 September 2019 - 03:51 AM, said:

But that is exactly what many players demanded, whether they now admit it or not.
Again, many players demanded equal teams. The countless matchmaker threads are proof of that.

That is why gamers are most often bad designers, naturaly there are exceptions but for the most part gamers don't have the data or overview of the games total performance to realy judge the system well.

On the other hand I think devs might want to be more open with gamers about this kind of data?
I mean if a the data of a certain patch shows that for the majority of players the results are what the devs intendet the patch to do, then maybe we wouldn't have so many people speaking very loudly against certain patches.

Also more data could result in more qualitative better input from the gamers to the devs. I mean there are enough gamers out there that work their *** off for free, doing the spreadsheet warrior and such. Work with those guys, communicate your vision of what the game should be and how to archive it.

On the last note of vision...there is allways the problem that different people have different ideals on what the game should be and they will conflict with each other at some point. Its the devs work to keep things on track of ONE vision and in the end that is the devs one.

[Khobai]

Feral Clown, on 30 August 2019 - 02:24 AM, said:

Except I have proof and there are folks that know about my other accounts, just not you.

I dont know you have other accounts. And how do I know these other people saying you have other accounts arnt just you posting on other accounts lying about having another account?

Oh wait now I sound like you.

[Jun Watarase]

That's a really vauge statement. Seems more like a generic PR statement than trying to make a real argument to be honest.

Balance gives you more options. If almost every mech in a match are the same few mechs with laser vomit loadouts, it gets stale pretty quickly. In games with bad balance, im usually forced to use the same options over and over, because most of the options in the game are bad.

[Khobai]

I think the biggest problem with weapon balance in MWO is that it tries to balance weapons by only using quantitative stats. There arnt enough non-quantitative differences in weapons. You can only balance so many weapons using stats alone. And I think the number of weapons in MWO is beyond that limit.

For example if pulse lasers actually had an energy bank and fired rapid pulses that quickly depleted the energy bank faster than it recharged that would be a good example of making lasers and pulse lasers different in a non-quantitative way.

Thats how MWLL handled pulse lasers. They did a much better job of differentiating weapons using non-quantitative properties.

The biggest problem with using quantitative stats as the main means of balancing is that it makes it very apparent which weapons are the best weapons because higher numbers are better. You can spreadsheet warrior which weapons are the best. But when you use non-quantitatives to balance weapons its not always 100% apparent which weapon is the best.

Edited by Khobai, 01 September 2019 - 07:33 AM.

[Toothless]

Khobai, on 01 September 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

I think the biggest problem with weapon balance in MWO is that it tries to balance weapons by only using quantitative stats. There arnt enough non-quantitative differences in weapons. You can only balance so many weapons using stats alone. And I think the number of weapons in MWO is beyond that limit.

For example if pulse lasers actually had an energy bank and fired rapid pulses that quickly depleted the energy bank faster than it recharged that would be a good example of making lasers and pulse lasers different in a non-quantitative way.

Thats how MWLL handled pulse lasers. They did a much better job of differentiating weapons using non-quantitative properties.

The main problem with using quantitative stats as the main means of balancing is that it makes it very apparent which weapons are the best weapons because higher numbers are better. But when you use non-quantitatives to balance weapons its not always 100% apparent which weapon is the best.

Yea but that requires innovation and abstract thought by a company that couldnt remember how to change ammo types so they invented Clan Autocannons instead.

[Y E O N N E]

Having a bank to deplete and reload is still quantitative. It's changing the DPS profile of the weapon.

[Khobai]

Y E O N N E, on 01 September 2019 - 07:33 AM, said:

Having a bank to deplete and reload is still quantitative. It's changing the DPS profile of the weapon.

it changes more than just the dps profile of the weapon. it changes the entire playstyle of the weapon in a way which isnt quantitative. just like how RACs are different from regular ACs in a non-quantitative way.

suddenly pulse lasers become a hit and run burst damage weapon.

the way theyre used becomes fundamentally different from std lasers in a way that cant be easily expressed using a spreadsheet.

right now you can just spreadsheet warrior lasers and pulse lasers and know which one is better. because every single difference between the two is purely quantitative.

Edited by Khobai, 01 September 2019 - 07:42 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 01 September 2019 - 07:36 AM, said:

it changes more than just the dps profile of the weapon. it changes the entire playstyle of the weapon which isnt quantitative.

suddenly pulse lasers become a hit and run burst damage weapon.

Pulse lasers are already hit and run, burst damage weapons.

Unless you have both a cooldown and an energy bank, all this does is model pulse lasers with a longer duration and a longer cooldown, with the only conceptual difference being that you can interrupt your duration and immediately restart it if there is energy left in the bank. That's the qualitative part, but the weapon still lives or dies based on the values assigned to bank size, damage per pulse, range, heat per pulse, recharge time, etc.

I do agree that the weapons are too samey, but making them behave differently is not going to inherently solve any balance problem.