Jump to content

Patch Notes - 1.4.246.0 - 21-September-2021


229 replies to this topic

#221 pattonesque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 838 posts

Posted 04 October 2021 - 08:53 AM

View PostLowBob2000, on 04 October 2021 - 06:21 AM, said:

@C337Skymaster

Don't try to discuss your opinions about how the game could be changed/evolved on this forum. There will always be fanboys who attack you on a personal level. In the end it is a dead game with a hardcore but small fanbase and no one would invest a substantial amount of time/money in any "real" changes (avg player count decrease again since May https://steamcharts.com/app/342200). So don't invest your time into this discussion, its simple not worth it.


as has been repeated hundreds of times, player count in this game historically decreases from May to September on account of a powerful phenomenon known as summer. Folks who are in charge of balance are very much open to feedback, either here or on the publicly linked MWOComp discord.

#222 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 835 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 04 October 2021 - 11:57 AM

View Postpattonesque, on 04 October 2021 - 05:57 AM, said:


no one in charge of balance is saying these things


I didn't limit that statement to people in charge of balance. I said "people in this game", and in that case, it is a factually true statement. ERPPCs have already been relatively equalized, with the IS versions actually having lower heat than their Clan counterparts, with the same pinpoint damage, same range, and same velocity. The XL Engine behavior request comes up every single time IS Omnis are requested, as a way of getting around their built-in weakness.

The point being that requests for these changes illustrate a specific disregard for the backstory and lore in favor of equalizing the two tech bases, rather than modifying other gameplay mechanics (pinpoint accurate massed weapons fire, for example) to more accurately simulate the universe from which these stats were derived, thereby automatically achieving a much closer semblance of this "balance" that everyone is very interested in.

The issue I've been taking with the weapon "balance" patch is that the Cauldron completely upset the DPH balance of the entire weapon lineup on both sides by increasing damage and decreasing heat nearly across the board (notably: except guided missiles). The purpose of heat is to slow the firing rate and reduce available alpha strike sizes. Ghost Heat was meant to amplify this behavior because of pinpoint accurate fire to mitigate the possibility and number of one-shot kills. With the firepower boost and heat decrease, TTK is unavoidably reduced, even with all the recent armor buffs (which wouldn't be necessary if they hadn't gone ham on the weapons). Managing your heat is a test of a 'mechwarrior's skill. Part of why I enjoy hot maps, like Terra Therma. The tradeoff between ballistic and energy weapons is staying power and cost: You have to pay to replenish ammo, and you're liable to run out in an extended fight, while energy weapons will work until they're destroyed, but risk overheating your 'mech if you shoot them too often. With no heat and unlimited ammo (quirks), where's the tradeoff?

Honoring and duplicating the base game in MWO retains a level of skill in the 'mech lab and on the battlefield. Current modifications are removing a lot of that battlefield skill, and even 'mechlab skill is reduced. As long as you pick a weapon and boat nothing but, it should be "balanced" against every other boat out there, and there is an intentional punishment against having secondary or tertiary weapons systems.

View Postpattonesque, on 04 October 2021 - 08:53 AM, said:


as has been repeated hundreds of times, player count in this game historically decreases from May to September on account of a powerful phenomenon known as summer. Folks who are in charge of balance are very much open to feedback, either here or on the publicly linked MWOComp discord.


Summer on one half of the planet is winter on the other half, and they are not so poor as we in the North traditionally believe. As for "openness to feedback", I say "sort of". They're open to the feedback they want to hear: how to further Comp up MWO, and iron out the differences between everything, rather than amplify and promote differences and roles, and honor the source material from which everything is drawn. I know, because I've tried to provide feedback and was met with just as much vitriol there as here.

#223 pattonesque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 838 posts

Posted 04 October 2021 - 12:17 PM

It’s cool you know how seasons work.

The majority of people who play this game live in the Northern Hemisphere. Very nearly every single summer for which we have data there is a player decline from May to September as people go outside.

#224 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • 7,575 posts
  • LocationIn an Urbie with LBX10, asking people if they can find Kurt Cobain

Posted 04 October 2021 - 05:14 PM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 04 October 2021 - 02:46 AM, said:

The lack of any connection to the backstory of the franchise is why we have people in this game insisting that a Clan ERPPC and Inner Sphere ERPPC should be the same, or that Clan and IS XL engines should be the same. Without that connection to why things are the way they are, they don't understand the differences, and demand the entire erasure of any lore or flavor the game has beyond a HUD color difference. I've been really impressed with 2012 PGI's attempts at creating this game, and really frustrated at all the deviations I've seen since in the name of "balance" or "comp" or "new players who don't understand why things are different". That's not a reason to make them the same, that's a reason to explain why they're different. And not "because the source material was horribly unbalanced", but "because the developers of this technology had 300 years of relative peace and isolation in which to continue progressing it, while the users of this other technology killed off all their developers and a lot of their mechanics over that same period, and lost the knowledge and equipment for making and repairing the more advanced stuff".


This is a PVP game, we have to pick balance over lore, this is why IS-mechs are godquirked in comparison to clan-mechs, when in lore IS tech is comparatively ****. The more simmilar our tech and values get, the more consistent things become, and the more balanced they are. And that's why it's a hassle balancing MWO, it's because of asymmetry.

I mean consider Clan ERPPC, 6 tons, 15 damage, why would we settle with 10-damage 7-ton IS ERPPC? Clan Gauss is at 12 tons while still dealing 15 damage. Because of Clan's inherent superior technology is why balance-wise they have to feel comparatively **** to play.

I'd honestly rather nerf CERPPC at 12 damage with 11 heat and 4s CD.

#225 Gas Guzzler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 14,027 posts
  • LocationCalifornia Central Coast

Posted 05 October 2021 - 08:18 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 03 October 2021 - 07:53 PM, said:

That's a very ******* thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.



I'm not missing anything, but it seems like you might be, so allow me to enlighten you:

This game started life as a 100% 1:1 copy of all the statistics from the TT record sheets. It has since undergone changes in an effort to "balance" it (something that is not possible in an online PvP game. It just isn't. Don't try to claim that an end state of perfect balance even exists, because you're just lying to yourself and everyone else). This game started life with a promise of game-time progressing 1:1 with real-time, giving purpose to the advancement of technology, the development of new 'mech chassis, and giving a platform through which to relay the story of the universe as it happens. This game also started life with the promise of being able to travel from planet to planet, acquiring the resources necessary to keep your 'mech and/or unit patched up and functional. Just because PGI lied through their teeth and turned their backs on us all, doesn't mean we get to lie down and stop advocating for the game we were promised 10 years ago, and which we were ACTUALLY excited for, and thought we were funding.

I'm trying to advocate for a return to "Vanilla MWO" and taking a different approach at this so-called "balance", attacking different game mechanics that incorporate key features that are supposed to exist in the simulated universe, such as aiming difficulty, performance penalties for accumulating too much heat, balance mechanics preventing everyone running the #1 Meta 'mech in every game, all the time, etc. (Seeing the same 12 'mechs in a faction match coming at you is not only frustrating, but it's boring as hell. It's actually exciting to see rare 'mechs, because they're rare. It'd be nice for the 'mechs that are SUPPOSED to be rare, to be the actual rare 'mechs).

I'm an "old fart" with too many CB. I'm literally BEGGING for something to spend CB on. Premium 'mechs that give a CB boost? Pointless. Worthless. I actually avoid running them because I'm sick of earning so many CB. I avoid premium time unless I'm focusing on a 'mech that needs skill points. This game is pointless, and I'm trying to breathe new interest and new life into it by suggesting new mechanics that return it to the story from which it sprung. I seriously think this game would be more interesting if players could only afford one or two 'mechs at a time, and had to work towards affording and finding a new 'mech if they were bored with their current one, but meanwhile have the opportunity to take contracts, travel to planets, and do things that THEIR 'mech specializes in. (Urbanmechs, Annihilators, and Supernovas, for example: all dedicated point-defense 'mechs. Not meant to be hiking across open ground looking for a fight).

I'm sick and tired of people telling me to "just go play MW5". That's defeatist, and ignores the fact that there are ways to improve THIS game to bring the story of Battletech into it, and make it a more enjoyable role-playing experience that will engage players for more than the time it takes for them to level up their first dozen or so 'mechs. Once you've done the "mastery" thing a dozen times or so, this game has been beat, and there's no point to playing it, anymore. That's not good for player retention. If it wasn't for the constant "free stuff", I'd have given it up when HBS Battletech came out and never gone back. As it is, I play the events to get anything MC-related, and then go back to HBS until the next event rolls around.

The "Battletech Setting" is BS without the Battletech STORY that goes with it. It's just a reskinned Halo, or Call of Duty, all of which are completely asinine without a story to drive the gameplay. I watched my brother-in-law's nephews playing Halo 1v1, and without any of that game's story to back up what they were doing, it looked like the dumbest thing ever, and I swore off the entire franchise as idiotic. It's only within the last year or so that someone pointed out there's actually a story to that game and I might enjoy it. I'm trying my damndest to prevent the same thing happening to Battletech through MWO.


The story of BattleTech can come in the form of story/Faction Play, and we would all be for it. NOT balance.

Copying stats from a hilariously unbalanced table top game has nothing to do with story and is just bad online multiplayer game design.

Some of your suggestions just make the already grind-based game less friendly to newer players who now have to grind even more to have a balanced set of tools to use against their opposition. You even admit here that you have all the C-bills you would ever need, so OF COURSE you like the idea of buying yourself an advantage. No thanks, online PvP means level playing field.

You want unbalanced arms race with hordes of scrubs to grind through? Yes, go play MW5. Expecting that in an online PvP game is akin to living in fantasy land.

#226 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 835 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 05 October 2021 - 10:08 AM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 04 October 2021 - 05:14 PM, said:


This is a PVP game, we have to pick balance over lore, this is why IS-mechs are godquirked in comparison to clan-mechs, when in lore IS tech is comparatively ****. The more simmilar our tech and values get, the more consistent things become, and the more balanced they are. And that's why it's a hassle balancing MWO, it's because of asymmetry.

I mean consider Clan ERPPC, 6 tons, 15 damage, why would we settle with 10-damage 7-ton IS ERPPC? Clan Gauss is at 12 tons while still dealing 15 damage. Because of Clan's inherent superior technology is why balance-wise they have to feel comparatively **** to play.

I'd honestly rather nerf CERPPC at 12 damage with 11 heat and 4s CD.


So there are other ways of "balancing" than godquirks and messing with base values all the time, such as inaccurate weapons fire, heat scale penalties, per-instance override, uneven teams, etc.

Personally, rather than buffing the damage and nerfing the heat on all the weapons as was recently done, I would have been more okay with bringing cERPPC heat back up to 15 (where it's supposed to be, anyway) or even 15.5 or something, to force staggered PPC fire and make it harder to soak up the ghost heat, if incurred. IS MPLs start at 6/4 (dmg/heat), but I forget where they were pre-patch, or if they were changed at all. Raising their heat a bit would also have made them harder to use as effectively, and reduced their outlier status without affecting the wider array of weaponry nearly as much as was done, and without introducing the power jump (way more than a "creep").

Something else I might have preferred would be, instead of keeping up-front damage consistent with the different weapons, keep their DPS over 10 seconds consistent, instead. That way, you can adjust the up-front damage as much as you want, and adjust the cooldown to match, to maintain the DPS and HPS associated with the actual weapon system, also making one-shot kills with PPFLD much harder, increasing TTK. The whole balance of TT was the fact that damage was spread everywhere, and it was impossible to land every single weapon on the same component. That's one of the biggest balancing factors that's missing from MWO.

View PostGas Guzzler, on 05 October 2021 - 08:18 AM, said:


The story of BattleTech can come in the form of story/Faction Play, and we would all be for it. NOT balance.

Copying stats from a hilariously unbalanced table top game has nothing to do with story and is just bad online multiplayer game design.

Some of your suggestions just make the already grind-based game less friendly to newer players who now have to grind even more to have a balanced set of tools to use against their opposition. You even admit here that you have all the C-bills you would ever need, so OF COURSE you like the idea of buying yourself an advantage. No thanks, online PvP means level playing field.

You want unbalanced arms race with hordes of scrubs to grind through? Yes, go play MW5. Expecting that in an online PvP game is akin to living in fantasy land.


I want the story in here, and in Faction Play, too. That's been part of my request: divide everything up Clan/IS so the two tech bases can be balanced by asymmetric team sizes, which is another missing key balancing factor: Inner Sphere militaries know better than to take a fight where they are outnumbered by the Clans. Needing to pick a faction (any faction) encourages the user to learn something about that faction, or just teaches them about it once they've picked it (an even better method). Tool tips, 'mech selection options, camo patterns, whatever you want. Present the information about the chosen faction to the player. All they have to do is click one from a presented list, if they don't know anything about any of them, yet. At present, it is free and easy to bounce between them, but if implemented, this would have to be much easier to find and use than the current menu buried in the Faction Play area.

I know that this is a difficult request, and that PGI has been unable to fulfill it in the past. That's no reason to stop asking for it, and maybe someone else will gain access to the source code with the knowledge, ability, resources, and time to actually implement it. Okay, put it way down on the list of priorities, just don't dismiss it from the list entirely.

No, I don't want an arms race or a seal-bashing arena. (I don't really want an "arena" at all. I feel like retreating from a bad fight and carrying intel with you would be a useful mechanic in this game, but again: it has to be carefully thought out and coded to prevent insta-quitting, while allowing retreat from a stomp). I want role-based combat, where every 'mech has its purpose, and weaker 'mechs are cheaper, easier to come by, and sufficiently effective in large combined arms actions, but not able to stand up against an Atlas, or a Dire Wolf, without an extremely skilled pilot at the helm.

Okay, I have an ungodly amount of CBills on my main account. I've been giving them away to units just to get rid of them, except that those units have billions of their own CB that they can't spend. I want to be able to start a new account and actually have to work at obtaining and maintaining a 'mech. No, I DON'T want to just be "all set". The fun part of all previous 'mechwarrior titles was the early struggle with limited resources and a few light 'mechs to try and earn heavier chassis and enough money to keep them repaired, maintained, and equipped. I started a new MWO account to try and recapture that early economic struggle. I was able to buy an Executioner, two Mad Dogs, and a Viper (Ghost Bear-themed Faction deck) on sale (because those are nearly all the time, now) by the time I was done with my 25 Cadet matches, and I had them mastered in a week or two. It only took me a few more months to play all the different factions to nab the first 14 free 'mech bays and fill them with soon-to-be mastered 'mechs. Within 8 months, I had 40 'mech bays and 36 'mechs and enough money to fill the other 4 slots with Clan Assaults twice over (I was just being indecisive about what I wanted to fill them with). At that point, I'm bored with MWO. There's nothing left to do by then. That's when I start wishing that I only had one 'mech, maybe two, and that by having THAT 'mech, I provide whatever service that 'mech is good at to a team, or unit, or mission, etc, to earn enough to keep it maintained and pay my bills. 8 months to be "done" with MWO because I beat the game. That is WAY too short. That's when I really picked up my time on the Forums to try and suggest changes and improvements to the storyline and immersion to boost engagement and keep the game interesting beyond "gotta catch 'em all".

I'm a numbers guy. I like to think about this game when I'm not playing it, and I like to be able to understand a build when I see it facing me. I like to read the record sheets in my spare time, and have them cycling as a rotating desktop background. I want all of those numbers to remain consistent all the time so they match up in my head. THAT'S why I'm so **** about keeping everything consistent and within rounding distance of where they all started. That, and I REALLY am frustrated by pinpoint alpha strikes, because any time I try to play on Oceanic Servers, the 300 ping means that I can be destroyed before I know I'm being hit. If I get a ping spike on European, same thing can happen. I've even had North American matches where distant laser fire generates no sound, and no red "you're being hit from this direction" indicator. Only the paper doll updates with the damage. If there's enough of it, and it's pinpoint, I can lose entire prominent geometric features of my 'mech without noticing.

These are the issues I'm trying to suggest solutions for, but because I'm not a Comp player, my opinions are worth dirt.

#227 pattonesque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 838 posts

Posted 05 October 2021 - 10:24 AM

I think it's because folks look at your proposed solutions and go "well that sounds not fun at all"

#228 C337Skymaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 835 posts
  • LocationNew England

Posted 05 October 2021 - 10:35 AM

A lot of my suggestions also involve completing the promises that were made by PGI 10 years ago, rather than settling for the currently broken status quo, which is boring and pointless (except for some people who enjoy mindless repetition and meaningless grinding, I guess?)

I'm not a programmer or a coder. My suggestions are only half- to three-quarters-formed. They represent overarching mechanics that I want to see and interact with, and represent a game I want to play, which provides a much more engaging challenge than the present game does, but it takes away a lot of the seal-clubbing ability (the ability to scalpel and destroy a new player who might be out of position or caught unawares without them really being able to mount any realistic defense), which I feel a lot of players consider to be "fun", without realizing that their victims find it very un-fun, and two or three matches of that prompts them to go looking for greener pastures.

I mean, I already play as though convergence isn't a thing, which is part of why I want it removed. I feel like that solves two or three issues at once: it spreads damage dealing ability around a bit, it makes it easier to lead a moving target, and it makes it easier to corner-peek through the invisible terrain that we all have to deal with.

Edited by C337Skymaster, 05 October 2021 - 10:41 AM.


#229 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 3,898 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 06 October 2021 - 12:11 AM

View PostC337Skymaster, on 03 October 2021 - 08:00 PM, said:

The trouble is, everything I'm asking for? Was proposed by Russ Bullock, himself, back in 2011. Then, when it was "too hard", it was quietly swept under the rug, and we were left with this half-developed "minimum viable product" that everyone seems so quick to defend, today...

View PostC337Skymaster, on 05 October 2021 - 10:35 AM, said:

A lot of my suggestions also involve completing the promises that were made by PGI 10 years ago, rather than settling for the currently broken status quo, which is boring and pointless (except for some people who enjoy mindless repetition and meaningless grinding, I guess?)

Those promises are not fulfillable in the game's present state, both due to being out of scope for what PGI is willing to do and alienating the game's remaining playerbase.

I get that you're attached to the idea of a massive multiplayer mechwarrior fantasy, and I would love to see that realized - but not at the expense of burning down MWO

#230 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,641 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 08 October 2021 - 01:51 AM

View Postpattonesque, on 05 October 2021 - 10:24 AM, said:

I think it's because folks look at your proposed solutions and go "well that sounds not fun at all"


That is exactly what I see too.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users