140 replies to this topic

[Gagis]

There's no way MWO could be considered CoD-like under any sort of probable changes and anyone who mentions CoD is likely to be completely clueless.

Please don't.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Samial, on 02 April 2021 - 08:42 PM, said:

You do realize lights are far to small compared to the tabletop already.. They should be getting bigger not smaller.. And Assault mechs are the ones that should be getting smaller..

An Atlas is 13 meters tall. Not 19 like here in MWO.. A commando is 8-10 meters tall.

Yu Huang = 13m Threads of ambition
Vixen under 13m Threads of ambition?
Jupiter = 13m A Call to arms
Victor = 14m lethal heritage
Hatcheman = 11m lethal heritage
Centurion 10+ meter
Firestarter = 12m Heir to the dragon
Gallowglas = 10 meter highlander gambit
Marauder =12m Thunder rift
Victor =10m? Sword and dagger
Mercenarys star; Shadow hawk =10m?
Warhammer =10m Shrapnel
Atlas =13m Shrapnel
Vindicator =9m tall (87mm LRMs -wolves on border)
Phoenix Hawk =11m lethal heritage (50 cal MG)
Goliath =nearly 12m Warrior ripost
Locust =10m Warrior coupa
Crusader =10m Assumption of risk

Mad Cat is 12m

Know whats funny? You say TT then use fluff that is actually inconsistent with TT.

With this in mind we can see that size is inconsistent in Battletech and what PGI is doing is fine.

[VeeOt Dragon]

Monke-, on 03 April 2021 - 03:14 AM, said:

Know whats funny? You say TT then use fluff that is actually inconsistent with TT.

With this in mind we can see that size is inconsistent in Battletech and what PGI is doing is fine.

hence my suggestion of using an average as a baseline. i love the lore doesn't mean i can't see where its contradictory. the lore should be used as foundation to work from not just completely disregarded. without the lore its just "generic robo shooter #47"

here on the forums there seem to be two camps, the lore hounds like myself and the "screw the lore" folks. i can't see why we can't find a middle ground that works for both sides. just like you will never see the quad mechs or trypods in MWO nor elementals and super heavies. even as a lore hound i don't think they would quite fit (both from a game engine standpoint and a game play one.)

also how about some more constructive input instead of something you would see from a 5 year old. use your head for something more than a hat rack. try to look at both sides discus a middle ground instead of just arguing like children. yeah i bring up cod a lot even if its extreemley unlikely to happen its just i see so many people trying to turn MWO into another twitch shooter. i just use it as a negative example.

most of the changes i sort of agree with though would rather they have been put into a PTS instead of just dropped into the live game. though putting it live will mean they can potentially get more feedback than they would in the PTS. (i'll have to try some builds with weapons i don't normally use that have been changed ans see how they feel, the Arty/airstrike will be interesting to see for one.)

[Meep Meep]

I can't think of a single forum poster that wants to turn this game into a generic cod shooter and nearly all of them favor the middle of the road approach. You are sounding hysterical.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Quote

hence my suggestion of using an average as a baseline. i love the lore doesn't mean i can't see where its contradictory. the lore should be used as foundation to work from not just completely disregarded. without the lore its just "generic robo shooter #47"

The only impact that the lore or fluff should have on MWO is that PGI pulls the mechs and equipment from the Battletech universe, otherwise gameplay comes first and foremost as it should in a competitive PvP shooter.

Quote

i can't see why we can't find a middle ground that works for both sides.

Why do we need to? If you want something truer to lore there is the singleplayer mechwarrior games, people don't want to sacrafice the quality of the game for muh lore.

Quote

also how about some more constructive input instead of something you would see from a 5 year old. use your head for something more than a hat rack. try to look at both sides discus a middle ground instead of just arguing like children. yeah i bring up cod a lot even if its extreemley unlikely to happen its just i see so many people trying to turn MWO into another twitch shooter. i just use it as a negative example.

The fact that you think MWO is like CoD shows that you don't use your head either. Even if this game had lower TTK it still would play very differently from other twitch shooters,

[The6thMessenger]

Samial, on 02 April 2021 - 08:42 PM, said:

You do realize lights are far to small compared to the tabletop already.. They should be getting bigger not smaller.. And Assault mechs are the ones that should be getting smaller..

An Atlas is 13 meters tall. Not 19 like here in MWO.. A commando is 8-10 meters tall.

Yu Huang = 13m Threads of ambition
Vixen under 13m Threads of ambition?
Jupiter = 13m A Call to arms
Victor = 14m lethal heritage
Hatcheman = 11m lethal heritage
Centurion 10+ meter
Firestarter = 12m Heir to the dragon
Gallowglas = 10 meter highlander gambit
Marauder =12m Thunder rift
Victor =10m? Sword and dagger
Mercenarys star; Shadow hawk =10m?
Warhammer =10m Shrapnel
Atlas =13m Shrapnel
Vindicator =9m tall (87mm LRMs -wolves on border)
Phoenix Hawk =11m lethal heritage (50 cal MG)
Goliath =nearly 12m Warrior ripost
Locust =10m Warrior coupa
Crusader =10m Assumption of risk

Mad Cat is 12m

I really don't' care for specifics. But what I do care is mechs being too big and too small.

Just do Navid's rescale for god's sake.

Brauer, on 02 April 2021 - 09:10 PM, said:

Gameplay over TT. If light mechs were nearly the same size as all the rest of the mechs nobody would ever run them.

I always thought of lights as objective runners. If they are to be relevant, the objectives need to be relevant.

And then there's the matter of quirks. I mean let's face it, people would barely play urbie if it wasn't as hard as 45-tonners. The Locusts and Fleas, getting a bit larger with respect to their contemporaries, still smaller than the Commando by just a bit, I think all it takes is quirks. It still has it's speed and the enemy's poor aim to fall back to.

Of course even if you don't reduce the size of lights, there's also a matter of the assaults getting smaller and thereby lower view from the ground, so still by comparison, the assaults should they get smaller will also affect the ability to respond to Lights. This is my experience with regards to King-Crab, which has this uncanny ability to actually leg lights easily versus other assaults, I assume it to be the lower view as the rest of the mechs.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 03 April 2021 - 04:04 AM.

[Brauer]

The6thMessenger, on 03 April 2021 - 03:56 AM, said:

I always thought of lights as objective runners. If they are to be relevant, the objectives need to be relevant.

And then there's the matter of quirks. I mean let's face it, people would barely play urbie if it wasn't as hard as 45-tonners. The Locusts and Fleas, getting a bit larger with respect to their contemporaries, still smaller than the Commando by just a bit, I think all it takes is quirks. It still has it's speed and the enemy's poor aim to fall back to.

Of course even if you don't reduce the size of lights, there's also a matter of the assaults getting smaller and thereby lower view from the ground, so still by comparison, the assaults should they get smaller will also affect the ability to respond to Lights. This is my experience with regards to King-Crab, which has this uncanny ability to actually leg lights easily versus other assaults, I assume it to be the lower view as the rest of the mechs.

If a light mech was 10m tall and the average assault was 11-12m tall nobody would take lights because they'd be so easy to one-shot. They wouldn't even work as objective runners because it's not like you'd need more than one assault per cap to burn down any number of lights running to the points.

Lights are already relevant, I don't see why people would want to hand them a massive nerf by making them much larger (in fact some lights are already too big). IMO there are plenty of mechs that could use a rescale, and shrinking the biggest mechs can make a lot of sense, but making lights nearly the same size as other mechs is not a good idea.

[VeeOt Dragon]

i have never once said that MWO is like cod. i use it as an example from of my experience. cod is at one end having TTK in seconds or sub seconds were twitch reactions win the match. MWO is at the other, TTK is far longer with tactics, build strategy/playstyle, and teamwork being the deciding factors. also if i remember right (it has been many many years since i played a cod game) cod is 4v4 were MWO is 12v12. also cod is a far more generic shooter than MWO with its only real lore being that of historical events (and they don't even get those right most of the time). Battletech on the other hand as a whole has a deep and rich lore. MWO is based in that universe and as such should use it. does all of it fit with a shooter style game, no but it shouldn't be tossed aside out of hand. if all you are going to take from the lore is the most general aesthetic than you are better off creating your own universe were you are free to make whatever system you want. by calling it Mechwarrior it brings a certain expectation either from those who have played the older Mechwarrior games, TT, or the various books/media and those that only have the barest understanding of the world. hell i would love for each mech to have a little couple paragraph description (build date, intended role, perhaps what factions tend to use it and having bits on each variant) along with it that gives a bit of lore on that mech. am i going to push hard for it, no because there are far more important issues that need fixed.

we don't live in a perfect world so the game will never be the gem that lore hounds would love to have nor will it be what the "screw lore" crowd want. i agree that some mechs are way to big for their weight and their are some who are a bit to small perhaps (not many of those honestly). a balance needs to be struck but how to get to that? i honestly wouldn't want to be the Devs who have to figure all that out.

hell i'm glad that the game is off life support and back to the devs looking into things. they have a lot on their plate right now. weapon balancing, querks, size, map changes and objective ones. its a lot to get done honestly. all of it having to take into consideration how they balance out with each other while still taking into consideration the lore aspects that effect each category (more in some far less in others). also with MW5 coming to other platforms that sucks away manpower. its a lot of work

[PocketYoda]

Brauer, on 02 April 2021 - 09:10 PM, said:

Nerfing whatever was meta is what brought us to this place. Currently IS MPLs, UAC5s, UAC10s, LBX10s, and CERPPCs are all satisfying to use. I'd like to see other weapons buffed up to the point that they are as satisfying to use, or nearly as satisfying to use as the current top picks. I have no interest in seeing everything nerfed to the point where every engagement feels like a pillow fight.

Regarding TTK, since the top weapons are not being buffed this won't do much to impact the minimum TTK that we saw pre-patch. Overall TTK with this patch is going to be complicated because not all players run optimal builds all the time, but imo this patch just tries to put weapons that currently are not meta on a more even playing field with our current meta.



Gameplay over TT. If light mechs were nearly the same size as all the rest of the mechs nobody would ever run them.

Yes lets destroy it more why is it even called mechwarrior lets call it something totally different and everyone will leave.. Because lets be honest if this didn't have a battletech name attached no one would stay around.

Monke-, on 03 April 2021 - 03:14 AM, said:

Know whats funny? You say TT then use fluff that is actually inconsistent with TT.

With this in mind we can see that size is inconsistent in Battletech and what PGI is doing is fine.

The fluff is what made this game even happen.. If that didn't exist this would never have.

Edited by Samial, 03 April 2021 - 05:16 AM.

[Castigatus]

That doesn't mean the devs should be using lore to dictate game balance issues though.

Yes the game is based on the lore of the Battletech IP but first and foremost it needs to be a functional and at least somewhat balanced GAME, and if going against elements of the lore is necessary for that to happen then that's how it should be. PGI obviously believes this, or they wouldn't have done a lot of the things they have over the lifespan of the game. This is also leaving aside the issues with contradictory or unclear lore sources that people have already pointed out.

TLDR - There is zero point in strict adherence to IP lore if it wrecks the game balance in the process, especially when the lore itself is often contradictory.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Samial, on 03 April 2021 - 05:12 AM, said:

The fluff is what made this game even happen.. If that didn't exist this would never have.

What? How does that work?

[PocketYoda]

Gagis, on 03 April 2021 - 01:45 AM, said:

The novels are loosely based on the board game, and the board game and its record sheets and rulebooks are the only authoritative source of lore. Don't rely on the novels.

The board game doesn't really care about mech sizes. The miniatures are very inconsistently scaled since it really doesn't matter and there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus other than that mechs aren't supposed to be the size of very tall buildings like they are in MWO and instead be close to the sizes of conventional vehicles and small buildings.

Nightbird's take on volumetric scaling seems good, tho I'm not sure if Commando too is too much larger than a tank is, but at least its less far off than Atlas. Both from lore AND game design principles, since these oversized mechs make using cover and terrain much harder than it should be.

Sarna is the bible check there..

[Brauer]

Samial, on 03 April 2021 - 05:12 AM, said:

Yes lets destroy it more why is it even called mechwarrior lets call it something totally different and everyone will leave.. Because lets be honest if this didn't have a battletech name attached no one would stay around.


The fluff is what made this game even happen.. If that didn't exist this would never have.

This game would already be dead if PGI listened to ideas like yours. If all mechs were 9-12 meters tall it would just push everybody into the best heavies and assaults (mostly assaults to be honest) because there wouldn't be much of a reason to take a mech with less armor and less firepower. One of the reasons a lot of people have stuck around is that the core mech combat mechanics are pretty solid in MWO. Despite past balance decisions and a lack of new content people still play because the core gameplay loop is satisfying. If that wasn't the case, which it wouldn't be if it only made sense to bring big mechs, people would leave.

Samial, on 03 April 2021 - 05:49 AM, said:

Sarna is the bible check there..

Nah.

Castigatus, on 03 April 2021 - 05:25 AM, said:

That doesn't mean the devs should be using lore to dictate game balance issues though.

Yes the game is based on the lore of the Battletech IP but first and foremost it needs to be a functional and at least somewhat balanced GAME, and if going against elements of the lore is necessary for that to happen then that's how it should be. PGI obviously believes this, or they wouldn't have done a lot of the things they have over the lifespan of the game. This is also leaving aside the issues with contradictory or unclear lore sources that people have already pointed out.

TLDR - There is zero point in strict adherence to IP lore if it wrecks the game balance in the process, especially when the lore itself is often contradictory.

So much this.

[Steel Claws]

Samial, on 02 April 2021 - 08:56 PM, said:

It really does.

Only on the very surface - what works in turn based tabletop doesn't always translate well to live action play.

[GuavaPastry]

Capt Deadpool, on 02 April 2021 - 08:13 PM, said:

"... geometric re-scaling across all chassis in order to reduce the overall scale of ‘Mechs (particularly 35t+ chassis) and directly increase survivability."

1. Does this mean there shall never be a return to the glory days when most lights were not the size of mediums? Is the lowest performing, least played class being ignored yet again, ensuring most light chassis will continuuuuuue to remain useless until the eventual, inevitable cold death of the universe?? Hast the Cauldron/Gulag a dearth of actual light pilots??? ... Maybe I am overreacting, the 35 tonners actually are the most hit-box fawked of the lights...

It's pretty clear that no one making decisions plays light mechs.

[Brauer]

GuavaPastry, on 03 April 2021 - 07:51 AM, said:

It's pretty clear that no one making decisions plays light mechs.

You realize a rescale can include scaling down mechs like the Jenner and Jenner IIC which are too big right now right?

[pattonesque]

Samial, on 03 April 2021 - 05:12 AM, said:

Yes lets destroy it more why is it even called mechwarrior lets call it something totally different and everyone will leave.. Because lets be honest if this didn't have a battletech name attached no one would stay around.


The fluff is what made this game even happen.. If that didn't exist this would never have.

In the lore the Locust is a quick, difficult to hit mech with a small weapons payload

In the lore the Atlas is a mech with a lot of armor and firepower that slugs its way through fights

The game is true to the spirit of the lore

[FupDup]

Samial, on 02 April 2021 - 08:56 PM, said:

It really does.

It really doesn't, because the size of your pewter miniature had no impact on how likely you were to be hit by enemy fire. In a game like MWO, your size DOES affect how much damage you take.

Note that even in HBS Battletech, lights and mediums have an innate hit defense to represent their smaller size (+3 for lights and +1 for mediums).

[VeeOt Dragon]

thats why i say take the lore heights and build from there adjusting here and there as needed to balance things out. (never played with miniatures as i couldn't afford them and anyone who has played TT knows they aren't to scale with each other by any means.) you base it off the data sheets not the miniatures. since some of that data is inconsistent between editions you average those numbers and use that as a base for scaling.

Edited by VeeOt Dragon, 03 April 2021 - 08:34 AM.

[FupDup]

This just made me remember something...Samial has been made some fairly recent posts here that go against the lore, yet in this thread he's using the lore argument. Some examples:

Samial, on 25 March 2021 - 05:55 PM, said:

I like the ides of making LBX 2 the same size as AC2...

Samial, on 20 March 2021 - 06:32 PM, said:

IS ACs would be far better if they had a damage increase..

• AC2 5dmg
  
• AC5 8dmg
  
• AC10 12dmg
  
• AC20 20dmg

Some table top players run home brew with those damages to make the ACs viable..

So he's not even consistent with the lore argument.