476 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

=Outlaw=, on 04 March 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

No. Thats actually exactly where you need BV the most. If you are going to see abused loadouts due to no restrictions, its going to be in competitive matches. I don't want BV to "make it fair". I want be BV so that the majority of the games content isnt completely trivialized. I want gameplay diversity. Competitive matches are no exception.

BV is great. It allows you to use sub-optimal mechs and still get a fair fight. That's something that isn't possible with fights based on drop weight, classes, numbers, etc. You are 100% on about BV making it so everyone doesn't have to use the best chassis per ton or get screamed at in chat for the entire match.

[MaddMaxx]

And which version get used? V1, V2 or Or do wait for the "V3" version?

[Outlaw2]

MaddMaxx, on 05 March 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

And which version get used? V1, V2 or Or do wait for the "V3" version?

They need to make one specifically for MWO.
TT rules/mechanics should always be for inspiration ONLY.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 05 March 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I assume they'd use BV2 as a base and modify as needed. Outlaw is right in that it needs to be specifically made for MWO.

[Kedoyn]

BV or something equivilent. I strongly feel there needs to be some kind of balancing mechanic (at least for some matches). My ideal wish list:

1) Support different types of matches, you can have an unlimited format for those that want it but also have some that use a balancing mechanic.

2) would also like to see some kind of rankign/rating system for the merccorps, players and houses.

I'd like to see both hardcore and casual playtypes supported and having been on both ends of that spectrum It sucks to be a casual and constantly get steamrolled by a better equipped and better organized team over and over again and on the flip side if your one of the top teams you'd like to throw yourself against other top teams to test yourself

Preferably a mix of all of the above

[Dlardrageth]

=Outlaw=, on 04 March 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

No. Thats actually exactly where you need BV the most. If you are going to see abused loadouts due to no restrictions, its going to be in competitive matches. I don't want BV to "make it fair". I want be BV so that the majority of the games content isnt completely trivialized. I want gameplay diversity. Competitive matches are no exception.

Problem is that you throw any sliver of realism out of the window righte there. So the invasion force is "mightier" than the defenders for a match for planetary conquest on the (supposedly) galactic map. Maybe just because the defending unit is also fighting elsewhere and has thus overextended itself. But hey, we got too high a BV for thsi matchj, so let's call the invasion off and swap all to Locusts...?

While that may be somewhat exaggerated, that is the core issue here - how is that even remotely realistic any more? And mind me, I'm not talking about a general tonnage/BV limit for the battle, I'm talking about one side not bringing enough to the table. Why should their opponent be punished for them being lazy bums or not caring? I wholeheartedly agree that dynamic and perhaps even somewhat randomized total drop/battle limits add versatility and keep it interesting. I disagree in that I do not care if someone gets wiped off a planet because they cannot be bothere to bring more than 3 people to the fight instead of 12. Inherent "fairness" in a match is a petty joke if one team can force the other to fight with a "stump" setup simply by having no-shows, maybe even on purpose.

Apart from where "fairness" is nothing to concern one with when a planet conquest is at stake. Doesn't fit the lore/background either, we're not talking about medieval jousting or something. So having a global limit for a given battle is fine, but gimping one team because the other doesn't show up in numbers? Seriously?

[Ray Mason]

Victor Morson, on 05 March 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

The problem is the nature of the universe. You could make this argument for some other universes where something's role is evenly matched but slightly different, but here, you've just got the problem that a medium 'mech that's about, say, missile boating will not match a heavy designed for the same purpose. Not to say the weigh classes have no advantages, with light 'mechs being exceptional scouts and so forth. Also outside of just weight, quality is a bit issue in CBT. If they stick to the classic Dragon, we've got a prime example: The stock variant has an AC/5 as a primary gun, versus another version with a PPC. They are not even remotely in the same League, and the PPC one would win almost every single fight.



I'm primariy speaking from experience with every single MWO game before this one. If the gameplay is similar in concept, and they do not do anything wildly out of canon, I'm pretty sure these issues won't be any different: They're a fundemental part of the game.

One thing to note is that in MPBT3025, they had drop weight-ranges for different drops, so did all heavy/all assault/all medium drops so people would want to own something of every class. But I think that's a bad way to balance the game (despite giving a reason for all classes to exist) because it means that the majority of drops will end up decidedly monochromatic for 'mech selection.



The only other possible way I can see to balance this (in fact I might add it to the poll) for a more public friendly environment would be weight class slots for each drop: This is similar to games like Red Orchesta that allow, say, 2 Snipers, 2 Medics, etc.

I.e. if each drop has a clearly spelled out class limit (2 Assaults, 6 Heavies, 4 Lights) and then the players can decide who goes into what class, that would an acceptable way to setup fights honestly. I'd prefer more control over it because coming up with unique configurations is a lot of fun, but I will admit this method would make things faster for public games and for people who don't know much about MW.

All pick is faster and better for PUGs. As to the rest, I wrote my answer maybe 3 times already and I'm out of patience.

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__137739
http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__140568
http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__140970

Edited by Ray Mason, 06 March 2012 - 05:12 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Ray Mason, on 06 March 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

All pick is faster and better for PUGs. As to the rest, I wrote my answer maybe 3 times already and I'm out of patience.

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__137739
http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__140568
http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__140970

I honestly think the problem is that BattleTech is not, nor should be, balanced like DOTA.

There's nothing wrong with DOTA but it'd be like if I came in here trying to insist the game should be balanced similar to Call of Duty or Street Fighter. They're not comparable.

[Ray Mason]

It’s a MOBA, they are very much comparable. If time and time again MW games suffered from bad balance then why make another one and make the same mistakes? The game is F2P, they can’t sell a 5 hour campaign to their niche audience and reap the benefits, they need various options and good core gameplay. And for the 100th time, I’m offering better options, more options, not saying “this is the only way you should ever play this game”. The potential for good gameplay is there… unless they wedge the metagame into a handful of compositions allowed for each and every skill level and scenario.

Edited by Ray Mason, 06 March 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

=Outlaw=, on 05 March 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

They need to make one specifically for MWO.
TT rules/mechanics should always be for inspiration ONLY.

And we need the game to be available before the ACTUAL date of 3049... Create a brand new MWO only BV system... please...

[Victor Morson]

Ray Mason, on 06 March 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

It’s a MOBA, they are very much comparable. If time and time again MW games suffered from bad balance then why make another one and make the same mistakes? The game is F2P, they can’t sell a 5 hour campaign to their niche audience and reap the benefits, they need various options and good core gameplay. And for the 100th time, I’m offering better options, more options, not saying “this is the only way you should ever play this game”. The potential for good gameplay is there… unless they wedge the metagame into a handful of compositions allowed for each and every skill level and scenario.

The biggest mistake I think you're making is assuming the fact 50 tonners are not equipped to single handedly match the firepower of a 100 ton 'mech is "bad balance." It's not; I think the majority of hardcore CBT and MechWarrior fans would honestly be quite upset if a medium that's oriented towards front line fighting was on par with an assault doing the same thing in a 4v4 scenario.

I'm OK with them having advantages, even non-canon ones, like improved turn rates and such; they can also fill some roles heavier 'mechs can't from speed, so the idea of "fast moving big punch guns" can work good in team games, but at the end of the day in a team on team scenario, the one with twice the weight SHOULD have a huge advantage.

In otherwords, what you're talking about as bad balancing is what the majority of fans want. Balancing midrange assets based on the fact they are cheaper is good balance! In previous League play this offers tons of flexibility - one team might go with mostly mediums and some heavies, and the other might roll a couple assaults, some heavies, and a bunch of lights - both the same weight and value, but each tactic WILDLY different and giving both teams completely different characteristics. You have to start thinking of the team as a single entity, rather than each 'mech as one, to fully appreciate what I'm talking about. In a BV system (or even a weight system!) one person taking a terrible 'mech and making a sacrifice might win the day for the team, by allowing one of the best players to take something more expensive. It's a facinating mechanic.

PS: I added a new poll option, for a weight class "slot" system, similar to how some FPS games limit Sniper/Support/etc. positions, on a per mission basis. In otherwords the missions might have a randomized number of slots for both teams, which they can then fill - i.e. a mission might need 4 lights, 4 mediums, 2 heavies, 2 assaults and players can fill them (or down ton them). This would streamline the drop process as I assume the matchmaking is a much faster pace and league style careful configurations might be too time consuming, even though it's not my preferred system.

[Project_Mercy]

I'm in the BV camp, but I propose another option, Dead-is-Dead.

You buy a mech. If it gets cored, or it's somehow immobilized at the end of battle and your side loses, then it's gone. The winner's side gets to salvage it (if not cored). Then, balance the cash intake such that buying heavies and assaults (or repairing salvaged ones) is prohibative enough that people may not be in the mood to drop all their rares or assaults, or may drop something with a bit more speed so they have better retreat options, or something cheaper because they're not in the mood or the battle is less important to them.

Heck, you could even make it that you could only buy mechs produced from factories controlled by your faction (or mercs could buy from anyone with a premium attached), and that they only put out X mechs a week. Even have bidding wars between rarer ones.

I know this won't be supported, but I throw it out there as "It could be worse."

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 06 March 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[Project_Mercy]

Aegis Kleais™, on 06 March 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

I think the devs have confirmed that you can never lose a Mech. At it's worst (even after reactor breach), it is in a miserable and near-inoperable state and requires heavy funding to repair and bring back up to par.

Yeah, that's why I post it here in the suggestion thread. I know what they said, but it's still beta, so things are open to change. But yes, I have actually read all the dev posts

That said, I know it won't fly, because it's counter to F2P's casual environment. But I like to bring it up now and again, as a counter point to the "I should be able to do whatever i want, whenever I want." argument. I think some people lose track of the other options out there, in regards to being focused on what works well for them, which I know I'm equally as guilty of, but I feel it's easier to bring alternative POVs to things so at least it opens up discussion, especially when people have shoe-horned the discussion into an A or B format.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 06 March 2012 - 06:43 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Just as a side note, "Dead is Dead" like you are talking about is how the very early NBT League ran. They made the mistake of allowing 500 mechs into drops, however, so in practice it tended to end up with the rare heavy and assaults getting lost early on and then the game grinding into a medium vs medium fight.

That said, I did like that a lot; I just don't think it sounds like it'd work with MWO's play style (which I assume will be lots of automated battles, rather than scheduled League fights, with many units fighting for the same faction on any given front) - but I'll definitely give credit where it was due, and say this was an interesting way to handle things. When fights would come down to the wire and our Atlas pilot would be trying to keep his ride alive to fight again another day, it was a unique kind of tension.

EDIT: For those not familiar with this setup, the limiting factor was effectively having very few assaults and drastically reduced heavies from a large "what is available" pool for no limit drops. Honestly I think that the BV system is better for a lot of situations, but I've got to admit, it did have it's charm for all it's unbalanced glory.

Edited by Victor Morson, 06 March 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[Project_Mercy]

Victor Morson, on 06 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

That said, I did like that a lot; I just don't think it sounds like it'd work with MWO's play style (which I assume will be lots of automated battles, rather than scheduled League fights, with many units fighting for the same faction on any given front) - but I'll definitely give credit where it was due, and say this was an interesting way to handle things. When fights would come down to the wire and our Atlas pilot would be trying to keep his ride alive to fight again another day, it was a unique kind of tension.

Yeah. I've been playing Battletech CG games since MPBT, the GEnie game. I racked up a $150 phone bill one month, my parents almost killed me. Out of all of them, the best BT game, and honestly probably the best online MP game I've ever played, was the later 302X MUX's. You created your char via Mechwarrior rules (the P&P game, not the CG game), including if you bought edge (lives) or not. Your faction got a fixed number of mechs, and it was up to your faction captain to assign mechs to people. The only way to get more mechs was to wait for supplies from HQ (which were rare, and generally crappy), gain them through salvage, or try to steal them from neighboring systems. Same with supplies to fix those mechs. Regularly, you rolled with what you had because.. it was that or tanks (man, I had to use a pegasus for a whole month once). I remember one WHM-6D (and ONLY one) that was passed between factions.. I don't know how many times, till someone finally cored it. There was actually a WAKE for the damn mech. And if you died in that game you died. You could log in as a ghost for like 30 minutes to get your affairs in order, then your char was deleted, you had to start from scratch again. And getting XP in the Mechwarrior system was HARD.

I bring this up only because, this was the best gaming I've ever had, ever. I honestly thing it's unfortunate that so few people are willing to make games like this anymore.

I'm not ripping on MW:O here. From what I've read from the dev posts and output, they're doing a lot more right than wrong. I'm looking forward to MW:O, but personally I just wish someone would man up and make a game with some bite to it again. Doing SOMETHING to limit drops, be it tonnage, slots, of BV, would be better than just "lolz, drop what ya'll want, it's fine!"

At least there's no respawn on the same map yet (as far as I can tell?).

[Captain Red Shirt]

I'd say either a total team tonnage, or figure out a way to balance between the weight classes used overall between the teams (separate tonnage limit for lights and heavies for example)

[Ray Mason]

Victor Morson, on 06 March 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

The biggest mistake I think you're making is assuming the fact 50 tonners are not equipped to single handedly match the firepower of a 100 ton 'mech is "bad balance." It's not; I think the majority of hardcore CBT and MechWarrior fans would honestly be quite upset if a medium that's oriented towards front line fighting was on par with an assault doing the same thing in a 4v4 scenario.

I'm OK with them having advantages, even non-canon ones, like improved turn rates and such; they can also fill some roles heavier 'mechs can't from speed, so the idea of "fast moving big punch guns" can work good in team games, but at the end of the day in a team on team scenario, the one with twice the weight SHOULD have a huge advantage.

In otherwords, what you're talking about as bad balancing is what the majority of fans want. Balancing midrange assets based on the fact they are cheaper is good balance! In previous League play this offers tons of flexibility - one team might go with mostly mediums and some heavies, and the other might roll a couple assaults, some heavies, and a bunch of lights - both the same weight and value, but each tactic WILDLY different and giving both teams completely different characteristics. You have to start thinking of the team as a single entity, rather than each 'mech as one, to fully appreciate what I'm talking about. In a BV system (or even a weight system!) one person taking a terrible 'mech and making a sacrifice might win the day for the team, by allowing one of the best players to take something more expensive. It's a facinating mechanic.

PS: I added a new poll option, for a weight class "slot" system, similar to how some FPS games limit Sniper/Support/etc. positions, on a per mission basis. In otherwords the missions might have a randomized number of slots for both teams, which they can then fill - i.e. a mission might need 4 lights, 4 mediums, 2 heavies, 2 assaults and players can fill them (or down ton them). This would streamline the drop process as I assume the matchmaking is a much faster pace and league style careful configurations might be too time consuming, even though it's not my preferred system.

I’m not the only one here trying to explain that the game should be more than just “run up to them and shoot”. It’s not that the heavier does something better, he’s good at something else. If you decide to run up and go 1v1agaist a mech with better chances in straight up fight, you should lose most of the time. There should be, however, other ways to contribute to winning.

Depending on the map, metagame, play style etc. the composition should vary. The example of limited number of sniper/support etc. is exactly what’s wrong with it. If there is a map which heavily favours all heavy or all light, I’m absolutely ok with that, just don’t put a “this map is only available to light mechs” sign on it. The fun is to figure this on your own, to have the freedom to experiment with the team composition. You’re already limited by an absolutely arbitrary rule that the conflict happens between equal number of people.

As to what the majority of the fans wants, I’ve already wrote it’s a F2P game. There are many niche MMOs which are rather old, not very interesting to the general public but require a monthly fee and don’t “die”. These games live of their die hard fans, they don’t have to compromise and they’ll never make a splash. You could create another MW game, put a campaign in it, offer yet another controversial multi player and easily sell it for 60 dollars to the fans. On the other hand, F2P is about low barrier of entry, having a good cash shop and trying to have a wide audience. If the only way to play this game was according to team tonnage you’d be shutting a lot of people out. By simply giving players the option to jump in a public game and play any composition they want to try you’re not harming the “fans” in any way and you’re making the game more popular to the casuals. If the majority of competitive players ends up playing “team tonnage”, then so be it. But for the love of god, don’t insist on making it the only option. This is not an election, this is not a competition.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 07 March 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

If I permanently lost a chassis I bought with real-world money I would be so pissed, lol.

And here I was thinking all this time, Aegis had been following along...

[Project_Mercy]

Aegis Kleais™, on 07 March 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

If I permanently lost a chassis I bought with real-world money I would be so pissed, lol.

You'd be surprised how much battletech changes when you know that you can actually lose that mech. Right now you're running off the standard MW#/MPBT:# mindset. People run forward, blast each other, then lol. When you're in a situation where you can actually lose your mech, things are a lot more tactical. Scouting and terrain becomes considerably more useful, and it's not uncommon for people to just withdraw because they don't see a sitiuation where the outcome is favors them..

.. which is exactly how it is in the books, fluff, and really what would make sense if there was any sort of realism to battletech.

Everyone pays for everything they get in-game. Whether it's a direct transaction for it through cash, or an amortization of your monthly fees, you're still paying for it. A game where you loose materials through failure (like Eve, or Full-loot games like UO) is basically someone taking real-money from you. Games that have lasted through the ages generally involve physical or monetary risk. It's only recently, when we switched to having single-player games that fluff up your ego and tell you you're a super hero; have we got into this state where people feel there shouldn't be any reprocussions for bad choices, and are unwilling to step up to the plate with anything to risk.

Like I said, I don't see MW:O going down this route, both because it's F2P, and because they're pandering to the largest audience they can get. That doesn't mean I can't post and say "there's other ways to do this."

[Damocles]

New system: Lima Bean capacity.