58 replies to this topic

[Helter]

The new player experience in this game for non-founders has not been what one could really call good. In fact, up until very recently, it could be charitably described as "agonizing". The cadet bonus was a massive step forward and an excellent start to improving on that, but there's still one very big area that needs work.

I'll just come out and say it. The trial mech system as it stands right now is simply awful. With few exceptions, tabletop designs make for terrible MWO robots, and one only needs to actually try and use them to realize this. If you don't want to do that (and I don't blame you), you need only peruse fil5000's excellent series on the subject. The fact that new players are stuck using these godawful designs for any length of time is just depressing, and the cadet bonus feels like a tacit acknowledgement of that fact.

"Okay," you say, "so they're bad. How do you propose we fix it?"

I'm glad you asked! I think it's pretty clear, actually: don't use tabletop designs as trial mechs. This doesn't mean giving players customizable trial mechs or anything like that, but it does mean giving them something that, at the very least, is not going to overheat in Caustic Valley's caldera simply by moving around and firing a single medium laser *cough*DRG-5N*cough*.

Heck, you don't even have to do the legwork in coming up with custom designs for the trials.

Do some community outreach. Hold weekly/monthly/whatever contests where design submissions are taken from the playerbase and voted on (internally or otherwise). Give winning designers a special cockpit banner or some other token reward if you're feeling particularly nice about it.

You can even prevent people from simply submitting their favorite flavor of the month design by putting a few restrictions in place and/or setting a theme. For example, say you're taking submissions for a Catapult CPLT-K2. You don't want everyone just submitting some variation of 2x Gauss rifles or 2x AC20, so you say something like "no ballistics larger than AC5, must use arm energy hardpoints, engine size limit 280 (standard only, no XL), no FF, Endo Steel and DHS OK" to make people actually think about it and come up with something reasonably fresh/encourage experimentation.

As a result, you should get something that at bare minimum is usable, if not particularly amazing, and exposes new players to the kinds of things they can look forward to when they have enough cash to customize a mech of their very own. It may also end up encouraging experienced pilots to use trial mechs as a way to actually try out a new chassis in a more realistic fitting prior to making a purchase decision.

Thoughts? I feel like there could be a lot of benefits to a revamped trial mech system, but if there's some glaring flaw I've overlooked, please feel free to point it out.

[Thronde]

Completely agree, and I have always liked this idea of let the community build/vote on mech designs. a few runs of that contest gives you months worth of trial mechs.

[Homeless Bill]

I support this idea. Especially the community contest. It's an elegant solution to a serious problem.

**** canon; trial 'mechs are there to introduce people to the game (many uninitiated to the Battletech universe). If your first experience sucks, you aren't going to be coming back for more.

Has anyone watched a first-time player struggle? I've watched people, and it's painful enough to learn without the builds running super-hot. PGI, if any of the suggestions in this forum are in your best interest as a company, this is it.

[Zyllos]

I think it is a huge mistake to modify the basic builds from the TRO loadouts.

There is only 2 things that can fix the basic loadouts (or trial mechs). Here is a post regarding basically the entire game and how to balance the issues between trial mechs, customized mechs, and ECM. There is also a post I have on fixing SSRMs but is not included. Someone can just search for the post through my profile:

Mech and Weapon Balance - Feedback

Zyllos, on 21 December 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Mech and Weapon balance issues:

- Too high RoF on all weapons.
- Heat is being introduced instaneously or across the weapon fire.
- ECM is completely overshadowing the game.

Proposals to fix above issues:

- Reduce RoF by 50%.
- Introduce heat across the CD of the weapon (include both the beam duration and CD for laser weapons).
- Balance DHS across all locations (inside/outside engines the same dissipation rate)
- Bring DHS down to 1.0 capacity.
- Introduce heat scale penalties.
- Introduce these suggestions: ECM Suggestions

Quote

- Make 1 Counter ECM counter all Disrupt ECM in range. I personally think making 1 Counter ECM work against all Disrupt ECM a big one because then it isn't always about fielding more ECMs, but instead using your Disrupt ECM to scout and not run into another equipped ECM mech to be countered and open for locking weaponry. This also doesn't make the Atlas D-DC team (4+ ECMs) just invincible against lock-on weapons because your team didn't decide to take 5+ other ECM mechs. This is really a way to give a reason for a team to take mechs other than ECM but to take at least 1 ECM mech for disruption.

- Make ECM reduce sensor range by 50%, not 75%. ECM is ment for scouting, not keeping certain mechs locked out of firing. Even at 400m sensor range, LRM users will only have 220m worth of workable distance to lock on with missiles while SSRMs will only have 90m.

- Let the BAP display some indication that an ECM equipped mech is within normal sensor range (according to Sarna saying BAP is jammed by ECM but indication is notified). Maybe give BAP users "pings" (kinda like how Thermal Mode shows the ping sweep, which seems like to me PGI is already testing out) so they can spot where ECM mechs are physically at. Once teams start to only take 1 or 2 ECMs, having BAP which gives pings to physical locations could be used to detect where ECM mechs are located at so you could chase the ECM mechs and destroy them with direct fire weapons. Then you might see teams start to take no ECM and work together with BAP users to counter ECM.

- Any mech equipped with ECM, running in Disrupt mode, should not be able to lockon with LRMs/SSRMs. This provides a pro/con for having equipped ECM.

- As many have said, fix the issues with hit detection. This will really help out in the department of having light mechs survive a disproportional amount of fire according to their weight. But this is obvious, just extremely important and I am sure PGI is working on.

- Change NARC to provide non-LoS targetting for an extended period of time. Allow PPCs to destroy them on hit (or location destruction) and Disrupt ECM within 180m to stop the beacon while it is broadcasting.

[MechMacaw]

I think new people should start with a basic commando or something in their mech lab. Having to grind c-bills with an unmodifyable mech can be fun, that is if you like the setup and you wouldnt really know anything about changing your mech untill you could buy one.

It is nice to have an option right at the beginning though unlike other games where when you start you are given and forced to play this weak tiny thing, but in some ways thats better because its good for getting used to the game.

And a new player jumping into battle with a huge trial mech such as a trial stalker, they would not perform very good since they have not gotten used to the controls, and not only does that make it hard for them, it would be a disadvantage to the team, but its just my opinion.

Edited by Steelbuns, 26 December 2012 - 09:52 PM.

[DivineCoffeeBinge]

It's a fine idea, I think - regardless of one's stance on how far MWO should 'stray' from TT Battletech. The reason is simple - community engagement.

Right now when an established player sees a trial 'Mech they tend to think something along the lines of 'Ooo, tasty.' This only exacerbates the natural divide between the Old Guard and the New Blood; newbies in trials aren't 'fellow players,' they're easy money. By giving the community a chance to design newbie rides, the Old Guard gets an *emotional investment* in ensuring that the new player experience is positive - because they get something out of it beyond the nebulous rewards of 'this will make the game better in the long run we promise.'

I get that there's a degree of Grognard Fear that crops up when you start talking about introducing 'non-canon designs'... I'm an old-school TT grog myself, I understand the feeling. But the vast majority of players are running non-canon designs anyways - why should canonicity be a *handicap* we inflict upon the newest of players? The fact is, MWO diverged from TT Btech and the design choices that suited it the instant it became a real-time game; the engine demands and the real-time heat dissipation and the fact that we can actually aim our shots ensure that the game *cannot* be truly faithful to tabletop rules, and why should it be? This game isn't that game, and vice versa.

(Heck, the vast majority of tabletop BattleMechs are deliberately sub-optimal for a reason; working within the demands of a less-than-optimal 'Mech design presented a strategic and tactical challenge that meshed well with the tactical wargame that was TT Btech, but that same tactical and strategic challenge applies much less effectively in MWO; you can't count on half your shots hitting your opponent's arms or legs or center torso instead of the Left Torso that actually has its structure open, et cetera).

So: yes, it's a good idea. It's a *very* good idea, because it will make the New Player Experience better *and* it will make the older players invested in *keeping* the New Player Experience positive by giving newbies a stream of interesting and well-performing 'Mechs to try.

[Zyllos]

DivineCoffeeBinge, on 26 December 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

It's a fine idea, I think - regardless of one's stance on how far MWO should 'stray' from TT Battletech. The reason is simple - community engagement.

Right now when an established player sees a trial 'Mech they tend to think something along the lines of 'Ooo, tasty.' This only exacerbates the natural divide between the Old Guard and the New Blood; newbies in trials aren't 'fellow players,' they're easy money. By giving the community a chance to design newbie rides, the Old Guard gets an *emotional investment* in ensuring that the new player experience is positive - because they get something out of it beyond the nebulous rewards of 'this will make the game better in the long run we promise.'

I get that there's a degree of Grognard Fear that crops up when you start talking about introducing 'non-canon designs'... I'm an old-school TT grog myself, I understand the feeling. But the vast majority of players are running non-canon designs anyways - why should canonicity be a *handicap* we inflict upon the newest of players? The fact is, MWO diverged from TT Btech and the design choices that suited it the instant it became a real-time game; the engine demands and the real-time heat dissipation and the fact that we can actually aim our shots ensure that the game *cannot* be truly faithful to tabletop rules, and why should it be? This game isn't that game, and vice versa.

(Heck, the vast majority of tabletop BattleMechs are deliberately sub-optimal for a reason; working within the demands of a less-than-optimal 'Mech design presented a strategic and tactical challenge that meshed well with the tactical wargame that was TT Btech, but that same tactical and strategic challenge applies much less effectively in MWO; you can't count on half your shots hitting your opponent's arms or legs or center torso instead of the Left Torso that actually has its structure open, et cetera).

So: yes, it's a good idea. It's a *very* good idea, because it will make the New Player Experience better *and* it will make the older players invested in *keeping* the New Player Experience positive by giving newbies a stream of interesting and well-performing 'Mechs to try.

See, that is my issue too. I want the game to play like canon. I custom build all the mechs to be as close as possible to canon but making them balanced and not worthless (basically finding ways to add heatsinks/ammo without changing up the basic idea of the mech).

All of my games feels nice, knowing that everyone hates to have bracketed weapons or mixing of various ranged/type weaponry so that I can provide damage at any range. Or running the boats are they are meant to be, like the AWS-8Q, with 3 PPCs. Which with a few tweaks, I have gotten it to run fairly cool and the new PPC speed changes, feels dangerous at the medium ranged area.

But, a lot of the issues with the basic loadouts are directly an issue with weapon convergence, weapon RoF, only having a heat penalty at 100%, and how the heat is being applied (instantaneously). PGI, and a large majority of the community, does not agree with me. They want their array of weapons to all hit a single location. They want heat to matter but only if it keeps the enemy from firing, not themselves. They do not want to be punished with a long wait (is 6.0s really that long?) if they fire all their weapons at the same time and do not take out the target.

So, we have received what the beta testers and community wanted. And hopefully we can fix the issue, but I hold no strong faith in what is currently seen. They have a strong base. They have the systems and algorithms built in. We just need to change the numbers to fit what was built all those years ago.

[Helter]

DivineCoffeeBinge, on 26 December 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

So: yes, it's a good idea. It's a *very* good idea, because it will make the New Player Experience better *and* it will make the older players invested in *keeping* the New Player Experience positive by giving newbies a stream of interesting and well-performing 'Mechs to try.

This right here is exactly what I hope would happen with this. The trial mechs don't need to be (and really, probably shouldn't be) optimal, but they do need to be Not Terrible. There's not many stock mechs in game right now that fit that description. Really, the AS7-D is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that that would fit that description.

[Lemniscate]

Zyllos, on 26 December 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

I want the game to play like canon. I custom build all the mechs to be as close as possible to canon but making them balanced and not worthless (basically finding ways to add heatsinks/ammo without changing up the basic idea of the mech).

There's a name for those mechs you know. Suboptimal.

[fil5000]

Helter, on 26 December 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

This right here is exactly what I hope would happen with this. The trial mechs don't need to be (and really, probably shouldn't be) optimal, but they do need to be Not Terrible. There's not many stock mechs in game right now that fit that description. Really, the AS7-D is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that that would fit that description.

The HBK-4SP is pretty decent out the box too, provided you don't alpha much.

I still like the contest idea, and to keep the trial mech a bit less optimised, PGI could apply restrictions like "no DHS" or "must use an XL engine" or "total cost must be less than 6m cbills" or something like that.

[Helter]

fil5000, on 26 December 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

The HBK-4SP is pretty decent out the box too, provided you don't alpha much.

I still like the contest idea, and to keep the trial mech a bit less optimised, PGI could apply restrictions like "no DHS" or "must use an XL engine" or "total cost must be less than 6m cbills" or something like that.

Yep, restrictions are part of the suggestion, and I think it would be necessary in order to keep things fresh. Every time a given variant is up for trial status you could have a different set of build restrictions.

And yeah, the HBK-4SP is another "okay" stock mech, and I guess I'd add the Jenners in there as well, but only barely.

[Dr Hieronymous Alloy]

Should tabletop really be the reference point, though? I'd suspect that far more potential customers are coming to this game because they played Mechwarrior or the other computer games, rather than tabletop.

Any solution that means trial mechs can fire more than once without overheating is probably a good idea.

[Monathin]

Zyllos, on 26 December 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

I think it is a huge mistake to modify the basic builds from the TRO loadouts.

There is only 2 things that can fix the basic loadouts (or trial mechs). Here is a post regarding basically the entire game and how to balance the issues between trial mechs, customized mechs, and ECM. There is also a post I have on fixing SSRMs but is not included. Someone can just search for the post through my profile:

Mech and Weapon Balance - Feedback

What? You can't serously expect PGI to do every single one of those things, especially the heatsink, ECM, and rate of fire nerfs. It'd be suicide. The game plays well with how it works right now, even if it could use some fine tuning, and not nerfs into the ground to make the game pace glacial with the double armor and nerfed firepower. Besides, this is about trial mechs' awful builds, stay on topic here.

As someone who will publicly admit to riding with fil5000 and the Kerensky Lance, I've seen my share of good trials and bad trials, that could be fixed with just a bit of fine-tuning. For instance, last cycle's hunchback probably would have been a pretty good build if it had simply slotted DHS versus SHS, as it's main problem (at least, main problem that isn't the gaping weak point that your Hunch provides) was that it simply ran too hot to brawl with. By contrast, this cycle's Dragon is awful, and I wouldn't blame anyone for quitting when they're trying to run it. I think community engagement with good, but not optimal builds would encourage a lot of friendly competition over neat designs for the various mechs. Sure, you get out of trials faster now, but the fact remains that they're awful to get into in the first place.

I'm totally behind the community trial mech competition idea, and hope PGI takes the idea into consideration, because the more fun the trial mechs are, the better retention of new players you'll have.

And for god's sake, if you're going to just drop stock BT tabletop builds in as trials, at least make sure to playtest them before doing so!

[Coolwhoami]

Zyllos, on 26 December 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

See, that is my issue too. I want the game to play like canon. I custom build all the mechs to be as close as possible to canon but making them balanced and not worthless (basically finding ways to add heatsinks/ammo without changing up the basic idea of the mech).

What canon? The turn based table top game this is extrapolating rules from, which would have absolutely nothing to do with a real time combat game? Why are you fitting mechs to suit this irrelevant thing? Your arguments are entirely biased toward your predisposed nonsensical attachment to rule sets that have no relation to this game, and as a result you are requesting that the game is balanced to suit this very unstructured ideal you have set for the game.

It is individuals such as yourself that are holding back this game from being developed in a balanced fashion, and you really need to look into what exactly you are wanting this game to be.

[Devorum]

I can't agree with this more. I'm a huge BT fan. I've played the TT game since the early '90s. I've played every iteration of the console/PC games. But if I hadn't known I had a core group of people to play with, and had them constantly reassuring me the game got better once I got out of trials, i would have given up on this game 10 or so matches in. The trials are that bad, and it is because of this foolish adherence to TT builds.

TT builds work OK in the turn based strategy game, but not in the real time PC games. They never have. MWO should take its cues from the Mechwarrior series of games, not from the TT strategy game.

Edited by Devorum, 27 December 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Ken Fury]

The current Trial Mechs already aren't true to TT canon due to having twice the armor value. At the very least PGI should offer all Stock Robits as Trial Versions all the time. So new players can actually test the Robits that are avaible to them.

And the Community made Robits could simply be -PGI Variants. PGI already did introduce new non canon Mechs (Ilya), so they are on the right track.

[MasterBLB]

Since they introduced cadet cbills bonus I think this trial mechs matter is not so important as before,because new players can buy own mechs way faster than before.

But for the changes for trial mechs usually it'd be enough if such designs would have been changed to have HE ~1.10-1.20

[Mr Steik]

You now get 100% XP/C-Bills in them... They're fixed.

[fil5000]

Mr Steik, on 27 December 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

You now get 100% XP/C-Bills in them... They're fixed.

Like masterblb said, cadet bonus has improved the situation a lot, and the xp and cbill gains at 100% helps even more, but they're by no means fixed. There's clearly a fair few people that own their own mechs and don't have to use trials that are arguing for a change to them. That in an of itself suggests something still isn't quite right.

A lot of the fixes people have proposed for trials are 1) not big in terms of what it would cost PGI to implement and 2) would get the community more actively engaged. If it was something that was going to require a huge investment of PGIs limited time I'd agree that the cadet bonus had fixed the issue enough for now.

[Devorum]

Mr Steik, on 27 December 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

You now get 100% XP/C-Bills in them... They're fixed.

That does nothing to fix trial 'Mechs that overheat firing one medium laser, like the current trial Dragon. The system is greatly improved, the 'Mechs are still awful. Nothing has changed about that.