544 replies to this topic

[Alreech]

Navid A1, on 06 October 2020 - 09:51 PM, said:

Of course... it would be more challenging to find something a MWO veteran player would spend money on.
On that regard, I would refer to myself.
I have almost 500 mechs, most of them are fully mastered. I have about 100k MC, more than 3.5 Billion Cbills. almost all the colors.
And I really find it hard to think of something... perhaps some brainstorming would be needed on this front.

Premium services for units for MCs would a possible reason to buy MCs:
- Private out game VOIP for unit members with less admin work than teamspeak, discord, payed by X MCs/hour,...
- Private forum sections, only aviable for unit members, for Y MCs/year
- Unit Crest as Decal Ingame, only aviable for unit members for 2000 MCs
- Unit Web site (like Battlefields 3 & 4 Platoons) with player roster & fluff / lore texts for Z MC/year
Basically the "Guild Stuff for cash" found in MMOs. Must be less work for the players than maintaining an own VOIP/Forum/Website.

Discount for a selected Cameo pattern, selected by the Unit Leader would be a reason to spend MCs for Cameos,
dito discount on leader selected Colors, Decals, Bolt Ons,.. for unit members.

[Alreech]

Navid A1, on 07 October 2020 - 04:03 PM, said:

Replacing a machine gun with a gauss is a balancing nightmare?
That "replacement" costs 14.5 tons and 6 extra slots... you know how much you need to sacrifice to get that?

Tonnage, size and type is a balance mechanics by itself. It's what makes MWO mechlab so good... because you can grab a mech and customize and make the thing you want out of it (F* the lore btw)

And no... the thing PGI has been failing at has been trying to force MWO balance to become like table top BT. Something that is fundamentally impossible.

Replacing a 340 Standard Engine with an 350 XL Engine frees up a lot of tonnage.
Enough to replace the Machine Gun of a Battlemaster with an Gaus Rifle and pair it with 2 PPCs. The reason why PGI nerfed that with Ghost Heat.

And it was in the table top the same balancing problem, on of the reason most Battle Tech tournaments won't allow modified or home brewed Mechs.

Quote

You talk about match quality being bad because clan and IS are not separate and in the next paragraph about faction play (with separate clan and IS) you present some other reason why match quality is bad?

No, i talked about balancing.

Quote

this has been discussed before, and level design is one of the major reasons. Also it is the nature of a pvp game. Specially in Mechwarrior franchise when the average player is 35+, has horrendous mechanical problems and last time he/she played a video game was in the 90s.

Lol.

Quote

External voice channels are part of playing as a group. This is 2020, not 1997.

External voice solutions are 1999 (Roger Wilco).
By 2005 first good internal voice solutions have been introduced (Battlefield 2, with automatic log in if joing a game server & channel switch if switching the Squad).
Now we have 2020, an build in voice coms are the norm, and MWOs voice com is still worse than that of 2005 Battlefield 2.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Alreech, on 07 October 2020 - 04:04 PM, said:

- Unit Crest as Decal Ingame, only aviable for unit members for 2000 MCs

Or you know, if you won them in 2016 and lost them a week later due to legal issues caused by HoL's logo.

The Key here is that unit decal submissions would have to be approved. They would have to fit a specific image format, not use any copywritten images, etc etc. I can be done, but needs lawyers to create the submission form. And submission alone should have a price since we are expecting work to be done (and reduce the number of stupid submissions)

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 07 October 2020 - 04:24 PM.

[C337Skymaster]

Kamikaze Viking, on 07 October 2020 - 04:21 PM, said:

Or you know, if you won them in 2016 and lost them a week later due to legal issues caused by HoL's logo.

The Key here is that unit decal submissions would have to be approved. They would have to fit a specific image format, not use any copywritten images, etc etc. I can be done, but needs lawyers to create the submission form. And submission alone should have a price since we are expecting work to be done (and reduce the number of stupid submissions)

I want some history on this one... I don't remember this, but was still pretty new to the game in 2016...

[The6thMessenger]

Alreech, on 07 October 2020 - 03:44 PM, said:

The MWO Mechlab with almost no direct restrictions is great... for a single player game.
But replacing Machine Guns with Gauss Rifles & Medium Lasers with Large Lasers is a balancing nightmare in a Multiplayer Shooter.
PGI tried to fix this balancing nightmare with Ghost Heat, didn't work well and make a lot of people mad.

It also make many Mechs quite similar: If you can mount a AC 20 or Gaussrifle on an a Shadow Hawk, a Hunchback, a Blackjack, an Centurion, an Enforcer,... what's the point of having different Mechs?
PGI tried to make the Mechs different with weapon quirks & more hardpoints, creating even more problems.

Even if the stock Shadow Hawk comes with an AC5 and a Medium Laser it's no problem to set the size limit for those hardpoints to "Large", allowing to replace those weapons with an AC 10 and a Large Laser to upgrade that Mech to a level comparable to a stock Enforcer.

Weapons also have only to be balanced in their size & type class.
It's easier if you only have to balance the Medium Laser with ER-Medium Laser / Medium Pulse Laser / Medium Heavy Laser, and don't have to use Ghost heat to balance "too many Medium Lasers vs 2 or 3 Large Lasers"...

Maybe a "Huge" size is needed for weapons like the AC20, Gaussrifle, Heavy Gauss, LRM 20 & MMR 40, Heavy PPC.
If the Hunchback is one of the few medium Mechs capable to mount one "Huge" ballistic weapon it will be different to the Shadow Hawk with it's 2 "Large" hardpoints.

I kind of agree with this part though. Having unrestricted mechlab seemed to me a balancing nightmare really, and it ends up with mostly the Meta-Builds that are the core focus of the balancing choices because they are the best at what they do, and frankly the worst offenders.

Not everyone could boat Gauss-PPC well, but everyone else is also penalized because one clan ******* could employ it well. Yes, a Clan *******, nobody was whining with the Gauss-PPC King-Crab, it's the god damn Poke-Kodiaks, and funnily enough the Night-Gyrs which ironically takes a lot of skill to poptart anyways. AFAIK Nobody else was whining about the 4x UAC10 until the god damn Kodiak came -- come to think of it, most of the ****-up were when PGI introduced the Clan Battlemechs.

And funnily enough, they tried a bit of roll-back with the ghost heat with HSL quirks.

Yeah you can balance with tonnage, sure, a 15-Ton weapon is already harder to put than a 0.5 ton weapon, but I agree, if you can pull off a build in one superior mech, what is the point of getting an inferior mech? Why pull off an AC20 Hunchback when an AC20 Shadowhawk has superior mobility due to jump-jet, and superior hitbox that it's XL-Safe?

But the sad part is that, while I agree with Sized Hardpoints, right now it will only gimp the mechs when the actual offenders are still capable of their original builds, the Clans will still have their effective Laser-Vomit. If you want to restrict ShadowHawks to UAC5s and below, to only Medium Lasers and below, to LRM5s and below, you are going to have to god-quirk the hell out of it anyways to be competitive against other choices, they might as well just unrestrict the weapons altogether and let the tonnage decide.

MWO2 maybe, the Engine and Hardpoint are somewhat locked, that means you can either choose the fast but lightly-armed Shadowhawk, or the heavily-armed but slow HunchBack like MW5, but you can't just implement it on MWO right now.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 October 2020 - 06:30 PM.

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 07 October 2020 - 06:14 PM, said:

I kind of agree with this part though. Having unrestricted mechlab seemed to me a balancing nightmare really, and it ends up with mostly the Meta-Builds that are the core focus of the balancing choices because they are the best at what they do, and frankly the worst offenders.

Not everyone could boat Gauss-PPC well, but everyone else is also penalized because one clan ******* could employ it well. Yes, a Clan *******, nobody was whining with the Gauss-PPC King-Crab, it's the god damn Poke-Kodiaks, and funnily enough the Night-Gyrs which ironically takes a lot of skill to poptart anyways. AFAIK Nobody else was whining about the 4x UAC10 until the god damn Kodiak came -- come to think of it, most of the ****-up were when PGI introduced the Clan Battlemechs.

And funnily enough, they tried a bit of roll-back with the ghost heat with HSL quirks.

Yeah you can balance with tonnage, sure, a 15-Ton weapon is already harder to put than a 0.5 ton weapon, but I agree, if you can pull off a build in one superior mech, what is the point of getting an inferior mech? Why pull off an AC20 Hunchback when an AC20 Shadowhawk has superior mobility due to jump-jet, and superior hitbox that it's XL-Safe?

But the sad part is that, while I agree with Sized Hardpoints, right now it will only gimp the mechs when the actual offenders are still capable of their original builds, the Clans will still have their effective Laser-Vomit. If you want to restrict ShadowHawks to UAC5s and below, to only Medium Lasers and below, to LRM5s and below, you are going to have to god-quirk the hell out of it anyways to be competitive against other choices, they might as well just unrestrict the weapons altogether and let the tonnage decide.

MWO2 maybe, the Engine and Hardpoint are somewhat locked, that means you can either choose the fast but lightly-armed Shadowhawk, or the heavily-armed but slow HunchBack like MW5, but you can't just implement it on MWO right now.

You realize stock has a VERY set meta as well I assume? You will ALWAYS have specific chassis that are better. Whether that reason is that they carry full armor and decent weapons stock, or that they have the weapon hardpoints, weapon locations, and hitboxes to be strong does not matter one lick at the end of the day. If anything customization opens up more doors because you have a greater number of potential combinations, rather than having to deal with intentionally ineffective stock builds.

[The6thMessenger]

Brauer, on 07 October 2020 - 06:37 PM, said:

You realize stock has a VERY set meta as well I assume? You will ALWAYS have specific chassis that are better. Whether that reason is that they carry full armor and decent weapons stock, or that they have the weapon hardpoints, weapon locations, and hitboxes to be strong does not matter one lick at the end of the day. If anything customization opens up more doors because you have a greater number of potential combinations, rather than having to deal with intentionally ineffective stock builds.

Note that I am not advocating for Stock mechs, rather I am advocating for MW5 style mechlab, not in MWO though, but as the better and easier choice for a multiplayer that is not necessarily MWO.

Well yeah, meta is just what is quite literally what just works best. There will always be a chassis that works better sure, but if you needed a specific chassis of a specific variant, there's greater precision and accuracy in handling it's performance because all you have to do is balance that specific mech, not an entire weapon system as it affects all possible mechs.

Having greater number of combinations does not necessarily equate it to being better, it's bloated because of the options, and would give more potential for runaway effectiveness, and that is what we see, and that is why PGI has to go through ridiculous balancing hoops like Ghost Heat, or Energy Draw. Eventually we will settle on a few best selection anyways, and they will be the worst offenders.

Having less choices to consider would be less chaotic, and easier to balance -- note that it's only easier to balance, but that does not mean it's more fun or more nuanced. Just easier to achieve an equilibrium, and admittedly can get stagnant as well. And that was the point, it's just easier to handle.

PGI looks like they can't handle it, not without the community input, hell even with community input because they keep disregarding much of it. They considered the Community-Driven Balance Update, but eh, much of it was disregarded anyways.

Note that I am not advocating for Stock mechs, rather I am advocating for MW5 style mechlab, not in MWO though, but as the better and easier choice for a multiplayer that is not necessarily MWO.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 07 October 2020 - 07:35 PM.

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 07 October 2020 - 07:28 PM, said:

Note that I am not advocating for Stock mechs, rather I am advocating for MW5 style mechlab, not in MWO though, but as the better and easier choice for a multiplayer that is not necessarily MWO.

Well yeah, meta is just what is quite literally what just works best. There will always be a chassis that works better sure, but if you needed a specific chassis of a specific variant, there's greater precision and accuracy in handling it's performance because all you have to do is balance that specific mech, not an entire weapon system as it affects all possible mechs.

Having greater number of combinations does not necessarily equate it to being better, it's bloated because of the options, and would give more potential for runaway effectiveness, and that is what we see, and that is why PGI has to go through ridiculous balancing hoops like Ghost Heat, or Energy Draw. Eventually we will settle on a few best selection anyways, and they will be the worst offenders.

Having less choices to consider would be less chaotic, and easier to balance -- note that it's only easier to balance, but that does not mean it's more fun or more nuanced. Just easier to achieve an equilibrium, and admittedly can get stagnant as well. And that was the point, it's just easier to handle.

PGI looks like they can't handle it, not without the community input, hell even with community input because they keep disregarding much of it. They considered the Community-Driven Balance Update, but eh, much of it was disregarded anyways.

Note that I am not advocating for Stock mechs, rather I am advocating for MW5 style mechlab, not in MWO though, but as the better and easier choice for a multiplayer that is not necessarily MWO.

The MW5 mechlab is incredibly close to stock mechs only and is, imo, the worst Mechwarrior mechlab yet released. There are loads of mechs in MW5 that are completely irrelevant because their hardpoints are terrible. That would not improve mwo. It would substantially narrow the number of viable builds available and restrict the meta quite a bit. IMO the mechlab is one of the things PGI probably did best for MWO.

[The6thMessenger]

Brauer, on 07 October 2020 - 08:29 PM, said:

The MW5 mechlab is incredibly close to stock mechs only and is, imo, the worst Mechwarrior mechlab yet released. There are loads of mechs in MW5 that are completely irrelevant because their hardpoints are terrible. That would not improve mwo. It would substantially narrow the number of viable builds available and restrict the meta quite a bit. IMO the mechlab is one of the things PGI probably did best for MWO.

I never said that it would improve MWO, it'll just be easier to balance and a better choice for multiplayer. I recognize that it's builds and counter-builds, and the ability to build more things differently means you have more counters to specific builds.

I agree that MWO has the best mech customization, but the ability to fine-tune mechs like that seemed to me that they just produced much more ludicrously min-maxed builds with runaway effectiveness. And while your solution for powerful builds are just counter builds, I'd rather the solution is to have less powerful builds that other builds could at least go toe to toe with.

[Horseman]

Alreech, on 07 October 2020 - 04:04 PM, said:

Premium services for units for MCs would a possible reason to buy MCs:
- Private out game VOIP for unit members with less admin work than teamspeak, discord, payed by X MCs/hour,...
- Private forum sections, only aviable for unit members, for Y MCs/year
- Unit Crest as Decal Ingame, only aviable for unit members for 2000 MCs
- Unit Web site (like Battlefields 3 & 4 Platoons) with player roster & fluff / lore texts for Z MC/year
Basically the "Guild Stuff for cash" found in MMOs. Must be less work for the players than maintaining an own VOIP/Forum/Website.

Discount for a selected Cameo pattern, selected by the Unit Leader would be a reason to spend MCs for Cameos,
dito discount on leader selected Colors, Decals, Bolt Ons,.. for unit members.

Having purchaseable unit crests and ability to discount the unit's uniform (additionally: having a quick select button in the mechlab to apply the uniform, colors and prepare the decals for positioning) would be helpful, yeah.

[zzoxx]

nuttyrat, on 07 October 2020 - 12:21 PM, said:

You can buy 200 GSP for $10 USD in the Gift Store right meow!

That went quick , thanks nutty.

[Kamikaze Viking]

C337Skymaster, on 07 October 2020 - 06:05 PM, said:

I want some history on this one... I don't remember this, but was still pretty new to the game in 2016...

At the end of Worlds 2016 all of the Finalists from each region was given a prize of Unit decals.(it was separated by region at that time because there was lots of teams).
One of our players was a graphic artist and created our logo to fit the submission rules and in it went.

IIRC At that time they also released a bonus on top of the 'tournament supporters pack' which included some of the winning decals.
This had not been specified in the Agreement when submitting the decals. But since PGI were going to be charging money for player created content there was a few creators that had a problem with it. My team was fine with that since our logo was created using PGI assets (a Commando TDK with a bucket on its head).

The big problem was the House of Lords logo was a parody/copy of the Harvard Law logo.

Hence the whole lot got pulled. I believe if they had updated their agreement legalese and asked for resubmission's I'm sure everything would have been fine, but they just left it there.


This is the only evidence I have that we had ISRC decals in game.


I would love to be able to have these back.

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 07 October 2020 - 11:21 PM.

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 07 October 2020 - 09:04 PM, said:

I never said that it would improve MWO, it'll just be easier to balance and a better choice for multiplayer. I recognize that it's builds and counter-builds, and the ability to build more things differently means you have more counters to specific builds.

I agree that MWO has the best mech customization, but the ability to fine-tune mechs like that seemed to me that they just produced much more ludicrously min-maxed builds with runaway effectiveness. And while your solution for powerful builds are just counter builds, I'd rather the solution is to have less powerful builds that other builds could at least go toe to toe with.

You still get HUGE gulfs in mech quality in MW5. A HBK-4P tears through just about every other medium in the game with the exception of some of the SRM mediums who have enough hardpoints to do work. So you end up with an even smaller number of viable mechs and builds and far more stagnant gameplay. My point is "ease of balance" is not the end all be all. If PGI wanted they could just slap everyone in one mech with the same fixed loadout, no skills, no consumables, and no other customization (not even paint!). Talk about ease of balance!

But of course that would be a snoozefest.

It's not that hard at the moment to see how balance adjustments at the margin will impact the game as we have a pretty solid baseline. There's no reason PGI couldn't make some tweaks and, in particular, try to make some underpowered weapons (CSPLs for example) viable.

[DAEDALOS513]

dario03, on 07 October 2020 - 10:15 AM, said:

Which again goes to the luck of what the enemy brought (though in this case you have a better idea of what they are bringing). The effectiveness of the weapon is too dependent on the players opposition instead of the players skill. Its also one of the reasons why the weapon should be rebalanced so that it isn't practically an auto counter vs brawling lights and weak vs bigger mechs.

No re-balance is needed.. just like every other build under the sun.. there's trade-offs to it.. streak mechs might hold their own against brawling lights (pilot skill not withstanding).. but not against pokey or stealth lights.. besides that.. the other player has to have the situational awareness to either avoid mechs that they cannot defeat (regardless if it's streaks or not) or, i dunno.. maybe stay with his lance mate(s) and take on the streak mech together? Or is that asking too much? I guess some people would rather drop the nerf hammer on everything they have trouble defeating than use skill and teamwork to win.. (for possible pilots such as this, see the ones that liked your comment...)

..what's next.. nerf the pir that can hold 50 machine guns? Many say that mech is ridiculously op.. Or the vulcan with its' insanely good hit-boxes?.. and on and on.. I say NO.. all builds have trade-offs that allow them to be counter-able.. it's up to the pilot to figure out that counter..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 08 October 2020 - 07:14 AM.

[0IOIHIOI0]

Powerful rockets for my favorite LRMs should appear in the in-game store. They should be more powerful than in-game ones in 1.25. I also want to add airstrike 2 times more power to the store too. I need a power amplifier for all robots so that my sleipnir can be faster than non-paying ones. I want to choose the color of the lasers myself, I want to shoot with black or rainbow colors. You need to add a more powerful coolshot 1.5 times more powerful than the free one. All this should be paid to make it clear who loves mwo and who is just greedy. I can think of something else. These measures will provide a cash injection into our favorite game and bring it to life.

[DAEDALOS513]

zzoxx, on 07 October 2020 - 10:31 PM, said:

That went quick , thanks nutty.

The fact that you didn't know you could spend real money on GSP goes to show that PGI really needs to work on advertising.. maybe more direct adverts through email.. with some promotional codes thrown in once in a while to ensure we keep reading their adverts..

Edited by DAEDALOS513, 08 October 2020 - 07:25 AM.

[DAEDALOS513]

Brauer, on 08 October 2020 - 06:32 AM, said:

You still get HUGE gulfs in mech quality in MW5. A HBK-4P tears through just about every other medium in the game with the exception of some of the SRM mediums who have enough hardpoints to do work. So you end up with an even smaller number of viable mechs and builds and far more stagnant gameplay. My point is "ease of balance" is not the end all be all. If PGI wanted they could just slap everyone in one mech with the same fixed loadout, no skills, no consumables, and no other customization (not even paint!). Talk about ease of balance!

But of course that would be a snoozefest.

It's not that hard at the moment to see how balance adjustments at the margin will impact the game as we have a pretty solid baseline. There's no reason PGI couldn't make some tweaks and, in particular, try to make some underpowered weapons (CSPLs for example) viable.

CSPL's are perfectly fine.. IS spl's on the other hand need love

[Orion3025]

Good news! Grats Daeron!

[Thorqemada]

To make my pov obvious:
As long there is map and mode voting i am done!

Explanation - Map Voting:
I can live very well with random map selection bcs i know that a bad day with "disliked" maps will followed eventually by a good day with "liked" maps.
With Voting there is extreme map favouritism that also makes the investment in new maps a forgone conclusion of failure bcs the chance the map is liked more than the usually favs is next to nothing.
PGI already automatically moderates the Map selection and it still does not work that well.


Mode Voting - This one is more a deciding factor to not play:
Honestly there are two types of modes and two types of players in MWO - Skirmish/Conquest and Killer/Conquestador.

In the past with Mode selection i could exclusively play conquest (imho the best game mode) when i was fed up with the several types of skirmish and when i did so i very probably would be paired with other players who also like conquest or at least do not dislike it.

With Mode Voting every now and then a Conquest match pops up where you play with others that dont like the mode and do nothing for the success but try to make a skimrish out of it or actively sabotage your gameing experience be it disconnecting artificially or whatever.

So, aside that my feeling about voting allways was it should be a premium time item and "content players" (read cheapskates) should eat what they get.


Conclusion:
At least Mode Voting woud have to be that way that conquest matches are exclusively played by players who like the mode or at least do not dislike it and it should no longer be a mode to be voted for - it should be selectable!

Aside of that as the damage is already done and everybody has voting the only way out to promote premium time would be to announce that PT-Votes count x times that of Free To Play Players in reagard to what Skimirsh Mode and what Map will be chosen by vote.
Yep - the rich have more power...


###


Respawn Modes:
No - i do not have the slightest interest in an unlimited respwan mode.
I want to hop on a QP Match when i have a window of time oportunisticly popping up and i have long stopped to let games dictate my daily schedule like it was in the early 2000s when MMOs were fresh and demanded a Group.
I am now an oportunity player when the oocason arises and i do not want Groups in QP - Syncdropping is already a thing and now they time it with premade Groups together - simyply NO!


That maybe make me never play MWO again - so be it in that case...i got my fun and time out of it and it would be nice if i could get more and if it is worth it i would even spend some bucks but to my preferences and not for the convenience of others!


PS: The only additional content i see that is left to be exploited aside of [Redacted]modes would be to introduce Pilot Avatars that will have an online career with pilot skilltree, equipment, outfits etc. that could easily multiply the monetization avenues if done right!

Edited by GM Patience, 15 October 2020 - 12:06 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Brauer, on 08 October 2020 - 06:32 AM, said:

You still get HUGE gulfs in mech quality in MW5. A HBK-4P tears through just about every other medium in the game with the exception of some of the SRM mediums who have enough hardpoints to do work. So you end up with an even smaller number of viable mechs and builds and far more stagnant gameplay.My point is "ease of balance" is not the end all be all. If PGI wanted they could just slap everyone in one mech with the same fixed loadout, no skills, no consumables, and no other customization (not even paint!). Talk about ease of balance!

It's called a slippery-slope brother, even though I am advocating for ease of balance, not to THAT degree. What I am looking for is less likely for balance to be broken, a compromise between unfettered freedom and a bit of restriction with builds. The MW5 Model, though granted I prefer MW4 Sized-Hardpoints, would provide the proper compromise between freedom to build your mech, but not in a way that you can easily break balance.

The best players are good with finding exploits within balance, and even more so unfettered freedom in building as they please. Remove the freedom, there is less likely game-breaking things, hell this is the point of Ghost Heat - they have to implement Ghost Heat because without it, well, the weapon combinations do get broken. And now they had to roll it back with HSL quirks on some mechs.

My opinion on this, I try to be the compromise between the high-tier and the mid-tier. Note that the video below is yes TF2, but the philosophy is.

Brauer, on 08 October 2020 - 06:32 AM, said:

It's not that hard at the moment to see how balance adjustments at the margin will impact the game as we have a pretty solid baseline. There's no reason PGI couldn't make some tweaks and, in particular, try to make some underpowered weapons (CSPLs for example) viable.

Oh, I agree, underperforming weapons should be buffed.

That being said, there is a reason against, not a good reason, or at least technically an explanation -- because their balance team are a bunch of twats.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 08 October 2020 - 08:04 AM.