532 replies to this topic

[CeeKay Boques]

In BattleTech, there's really no difference between a PPC, a Gauss, or Laser, other than some numbers. Maybe a point or 2 of heat, a range number, a hit modifier might be slightly different.

BattleTech is not numbers. The tables are. Make no mistake. The tables DEFINITELY have some numbers in them, I've used them.

But BattleTech? BattleTech is a Universe, and MWO is rocking that universe.

BTW, Light and Heavy Woods, slipping, smoke aren't in, LOS isn't modeled after BT... nope there's a lot of differences. Because this is a kickass sim/video game, and BT is a kickass game with miniatures. Its coming, you impatient grognard.

[Rifter]

Dax Frey, on 05 November 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Rifter all you seem to post is complaints lately. have you considered playing another game at this point? this game is obviously not for you anymore.

I am waiting for planetside 2 to go open beta in a few weeks then will probably shift playtime over to that, unless PGI gets there crap together by then.

[Windies]

This game hasn't felt like a Mechwarrior game for awhile. The way the devs are implementing and doing things, it probably never will. Complaining about it though, over and over again, doesn't fix it. The developers are pretty set on doing things the way they want to and being very PR savvy in their wordings. If you don't like it, don't play it.

[Rifter]

Windies, on 05 November 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

This game hasn't felt like a Mechwarrior game for awhile. The way the devs are implementing and doing things, it probably never will. Complaining about it though, over and over again, doesn't fix it. The developers are pretty set on doing things the way they want to and being very PR savvy in their wordings. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Sadly this is what it has come down to for alot of people.

[Windies]

Because it's all I can do. I want the game to be good, even posted and suggested ways to fix it, So did half the community. Where are we now? I had some attachment to the Mechwarrior franchise, still do for the most part, but PGI has taken a franchise name and associated it with a game that I would think, anyone who remembers the mechwarrior games, would be ashamed to have the named associated with.

[MrPenguin]

I got it give it to rifter, after getting his "argument" completely battered and beaten to a bloody pulp, his still kicking.
Thats worth something... I think...

Also, I found a visualization of what reasoning and common sense did to rifter's post.

I'd say its pretty accurate.

Edited by MrPenguin, 05 November 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[Rifter]

MrPenguin, on 05 November 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I got it give it to rifter, after getting his "argument" completely battered and beaten to a bloody pulp, his still kicking.
Thats worth something... I think...

Also, I found a visualization of what reasoning and common sense did to rifter's post.

I'd say its pretty accurate.

Funny then isnt it that for everyone who disagree's there is a person that agree's and liked the OP or replied that they agree.

[MustrumRidcully]

I find it funny that people always say that you cannot translate stats from the table top game to a real time game and keep everything as is - Why does PGI then even give us stock mechs? The should create their own mechs that work for a real time game!

Also, they are wrong if the believe the changes all lead to a better game. They don't.
Nerfing LEvel 2 Tech or Clan Tech? I think it's a good idea. Really. I don't like power creep.

But you know, it is possible to do this without making stock mechs irrelevant.

Rebalance the weapons around your heat system. If ER PPCs are too strong* if we allow DHS at full strength, then together with nerfing the DHS, you need to alter the ER PPCs so they can work with the new DHS stats. Reduce their heat level and lower their rate of fire perhaps so they fire slower than regular PPCs, but produce less heat at more range. Similar alpha strike capabiilty, but lessened DPS.

Or let's forget the table top for a moment. Let's just look at the balance between weapons. It's not good. There is little reason to use a PPC if you can equip a Gauss Rifle. If there was no Gauss Rifle, there would be little reason to use a PPC if there is an AC/10. If there was no AC/10, there would be little reason to use a PPC if there is a AC/5. And if Unjamming was easier, there would be little reason to use an AC/5 or an AC/10 instead of an Ultra AC/5.
There is little reason to use a pulse laser if you can equip a small laser.

Fundamentally, the limiter of our damage output is the weight needed to run a weapon. If we skimp on weapns, we have less damage potential. If we skimp on heat sinks, our weapon fire cannot be sustained for long. If we skimp on ammo, we run dry.

If we compare weapons by their ammo and heat requirements alone, determine the damage they can inflict and the tonnage they would cost to get us there, we will see that they are imbalanced. Even without ever taking a look at the table top.
That the stats as is also make most stock mechs useless is just icing on the cake. The two together create a game that a serious PVP gamers may wonder why he should bother with an imbalanced mess, and a Battletech fan why he should bother playing a stompy robot game if it doesn't give him the Battletech experience, and his favorite mechs are useless.

Here, this is the state of the game balance right now, with single heat sinks:

Spoiler

The short explaination - I compare tonnage to run a weapon vs the damage it can produce. I calculate the damage in different manners (pure DPS vs a weighted damage value also considering the value of the alpha strike ability of a weapon) as the tonnage, using different benchmarks. The first benchmark is heat neutrality (enough heat sinks to negate all weapons), the second "Targeted Engagement Time" - just trying to have your weapons fire for 20 to 90 seconds before you overheat and see how much damage you can squeeze out of them in that time. All examples are using enough ammo to reasonable run the weapon through a match (3 minutes uninterrupted fire). More details here: http://mwomercs.com/...state-20121030/

*) I wonder why? They deal the same damage as regular PPCs.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 November 2012 - 11:39 PM.

[Rifter]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

I find it funny that people always say that you cannot translate stats from the table top game to a real time game and keep everything as is - Why does PGI then even give us stock mechs? The should create their own mechs that work for a real time game!

Also, they are wrong if the believe the changes all lead to a better game. They don't.
Nerfing LEvel 2 Tech or Clan Tech? I think it's a good idea. Really. I don't like power creep.

But you know, it is possible to do this without making stock mechs irrelevant.

Rebalance the weapons around your heat system. If ER PPCs are too strong* if we allow DHS at full strength, then together with nerfing the DHS, you need to alter the ER PPCs so they can work with the new DHS stats. Reduce their heat level and lower their rate of fire perhaps so they fire slower than regular PPCs, but produce less heat at more range. Similar alpha strike capabiilty, but lessened DPS.

Or let's forget the table top for a moment. Let's just look at the balance between weapons. It's not good. There is little reason to use a PPC if you can equip a Gauss Rifle. If there was no Gauss Rifle, there would be little reason to use a PPC if there is an AC/10. If there was no AC/10, there would be little reason to use a PPC if there is a AC/5. And if Unjamming was easier, there would be little reason to use an AC/5 or an AC/10 instead of an Ultra AC/5.
There is little reason to use a pulse laser if you can equip a small laser.

Fundamentally, the limiter of our damage output is the weight needed to run a weapon. If we skimp on weapns, we have less damage potential. If we skimp on heat sinks, our weapon fire cannot be sustained for long. If we skimp on ammo, we run dry.

If we compare weapons by their ammo and heat requirements alone, determine the damage they can inflict and the tonnage they would cost to get us there, we will see that they are imbalanced. Even without ever taking a look at the table top.
That the stats as is also make most stock mechs useless is just icing on the cake. The two together create a game that a serious PVP gamers may wonder why he should bother with an imbalanced mess, and a Battletech fan why he should bother playing a stompy robot game if it doesn't give him the Battletech experience, and his favorite mechs are useless.



*) I wonder why? They deal the same damage as regular PPCs.

Well said.

[Indoorsman]

If we're stuck w/1.4DHS they could fix(make them not suck) them by making em take up 2 slots and make Clan DHS real(2x) DHS that still take up 2 slots. I think that would reduce the OPs blood pressure a little.

[Rifter]

Indoorsman, on 05 November 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

If we're stuck w/1.4DHS they could fix(make them not suck) them by making em take up 2 slots and make Clan DHS real(2x) DHS that still take up 2 slots. I think that would reduce the OPs blood pressure a little.

That would help due to being able to boat more of them(leg, CT, etc), but still leave you with pulling weapons(tonnage) off a stock design to add heatsinks it shouldnt need.

[Stormwolf]

I agree with Rifter, the current game stats are a bit too far removed from the sourcematerial.
People have always been able to oversink their mechs, that is what you get when you have a mechlab.

The TT had a balance worked out, but changes to MWO altered this by a great degree. Every change you make will unbalance something else, it's almost like a endless circle.

The main problem here is that the current system makes stock designs fairly worthless due to the heat issue. People argue that this isn't TT, but they don't realize that the 10 second cooldown period for heatsinks comes from TT and is pretty much causing the problem.

You can have full TT stats for weapons and they'd work if they make the cooldown rate closer to 5 or 6 seconds instead of 10.

[Krivvan]

Rifter, on 05 November 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Yeah calling a hunchback a high speed mech is laughable. Even without the engine nerfs laserbacks were not a issue to deal with, they had very weak rear armor. and the RT with all the lasers was a huge target as well.

Hunchbacks had no engine limits and without a penalty to using XL engines (side torsos wouldn't kill you).

Quote

HBKs cant boat 11 lasers, not even the 4P. And theyre not exactly fast, my 4P has a 250 engine and only goes 81kph.

The 4P had 11 hardpoints earlier.

[Daimonos]

axeman, on 05 November 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:

I think the balance should be set in such a way that the 1.5 mil extra that's gone into a 9m awesome's heat sinks isn't a bonehead move. I don't care if it's only a fraction better, or whether or not it equals table top. If the stock build comes with an upgrade then it should be at it's most base level an improvement. That's not to say an improvement worth that cost (could be only two points of dissapation for all I care).

It's not like an XL engine coming with a stock build which has advantages and disadvantages either way and is of subjective worth. If the 9m comes with double heat sinks and worse heat disapation than it would have without them, something has gone a touch wrong,

We'll see for sure tonight, but on paper 1.4 is just a bit too low - the 9M should run cooler with DHS, not hotter. Even at DHS=1.5 the 9M would only break even.

One good suggestion I heard recently would be to restrict DHS to XL engines - this might be canon, but I don't know for sure. It would ensure that DHS builds at least had the extra vulnerability that comes with XLs. Oh, and a final increase to 1.5 < DHS <= 2.

-- Δ

[Krivvan]

Vexgrave Lars, on 05 November 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

"The most true to life/science/physics Battlemech Sim ever made, Based on the world of Mechwarrior"

Based in the world of Mechwarrior. So basically Mechwarrior. It's not as if numbers and stats make it Battletech or Mechwarrior.

[Commander Gravey]

Rifter, your main fault was posting your QQ thread in General Discussion. Why should I take you serious now? If you have anything constructive other than whining about things that can't be applied 1:1 because it would horribly break the Game, then go find some Real Life friends and play Tabletop BattleTech and not waste our time with your 'noise'.


I'm pretty sure the other Games didn't follow BT rules either on the letter and still they count as True Stompy Robots game? Why bother on a MMO that is still not as close finished and still has alot of time for fixes and balancing?

Helmer, on 05 November 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

When developing MWO PGI started with the exact TableTop stats . As someone who has been testing since the early Friends and Family stages, I felt that the game (with a 1 - 1 TT translation) was simply not fun.
Small lasers on a fast moving 'mech was an instant win button, LRMs were grossly ineffective, and Autocannons were next to useless.

Although I can respect the opinion that perhaps PGI has strayed too far from the TT values, I feel that almost every single change has been for the better. Things are still in a state of balancing and fluctuation. Adherence to the original TT rules is great, however, there comes a time when the TT fail in a First Person setting such as this.
The TT rules were very complex for a TT game, however, they represent , in some cases, abstract values and concepts that are not needed in a environment such as this. The rules do not scale well and must be adapted.


Again, I can respect your opinion, I hope you can understand that perhaps not everyone will agree with you.


Cheers.

I fully support this^



Get off the Forums and take your minions with you.

[Kaziganthi]

daimonos, on 06 November 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

We'll see for sure tonight, but on paper 1.4 is just a bit too low - the 9M should run cooler with DHS, not hotter. Even at DHS=1.5 the 9M would only break even.

One good suggestion I heard recently would be to restrict DHS to XL engines - this might be canon, but I don't know for sure. It would ensure that DHS builds at least had the extra vulnerability that comes with XLs. Oh, and a final increase to 1.5 < DHS <= 2.

-- Δ

From what I remember, all XL engines automatically came with DHS instead of SHS as the technology was part and parcel of the engine design.

Edit : Just went through a selection of mech sheets and couldn't see any mech that had an XL engine that did not have DHS, although the construction rules do not specificall state that an XL engine automatically has double heatsinks. But as you get 10 free HS on every engine, it would be smarter to take DHS instead of SHS as you get better heat management.

Edited by Kaziganthi, 06 November 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[Krivvan]

Maybe my memory is slightly faulty, but didn't MW4 pretty much take all the numbers (crit slots, tonnage, damage, range, everything) from the TT, throw them out the window, and just make a game the way they wanted to? And that's supposed to be more of a Mechwarrior game?

Seriously, this is almost childish. Look at any other video game series that radically changes everything in the game in each sequel. People don't complain about changing damage numbers and things behind the scenes like that. What really matters is that the theme is Battletech. The devs didn't say they were going to stick with TT values, they said they were going to start with TT values and change them.

[SluGGG]

Agree with Rifter. They wanted BT and MW fans at the start to get their money from founders, now it's "their game" and BT rules don't mean squat. Don't worry about these rabid barking dogs, I guarantee you none of them bite, just pusssies and pansies that like yapping to what they percieve to be whining. GG

[Kaziganthi]

Krivvan, on 06 November 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

What really matters is that the theme is Battletech.

Then call it Robotech as half the mech images actually came from that series.

Edited by Kaziganthi, 06 November 2012 - 12:33 AM.