21 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

Xandralkus, on 06 January 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

I admit the reasoning does get slightly tangential, although I don't believe we can have a discussion about ECM availability per-chassis without a simultaneous discussion of how much players should be allowed to vary their designs effectively outside the 'original' role of the mech, and ultimately the question of "How should things be balanced?"

This is true, but i fear too many tangents might switch people off - i tried to contain this idea to work within what PGI have chosen as game design mechanics as much as possible because quite frankly - i do not think they are going to change much - but guided missiles and ECM are the biggest bugbears they have to fight right now apart from netcode.

This will be my last post on it - feel free to reply if you want a chance to respond but futher to that feel free to PM me if you want to continue such an academic debate on game design

Quote

Most importantly, the option of 'No ECM' needs to be an equally worthwhile choice.

This is possibly the most important sentence of this entire thread. Whatever way they choose to move in restiction, open customisation, or whatever. The choice to NOT take ECM should be a consideration for a player. They should actually think - do i need to spend that tonnage and critical space really? Could I build something effective in a different way by not taking it? At the moment there is NEVER any reason to not take ECM and so this is not a well balanced peice of equipment. When players actually stop and think - and make a considered choice about ECM on their mech then it migth be in abalanced statee.

I believe both our points of view one game design choices are valid BTW - and both can be implemented well (I just believe that a more restrictive system would fit the battletech lore much better). So nothing aginst your argument i just feel broad roles via bonuses for mechs supposed to fit in that role might make people choice a variety of mechs and loadouts based on their place in the team.

And boating solutions need to be there because the ease of boating as we know is VERY attractive and currently has very little downside.

Quote

The massive deviations in missile effectiveness based upon ECM demonstrates huge game imbalance. These stats should be normalized. LRM boats do not deserve infinite free reign over open spaces, and ECM boats and their allies do not deserve infinite immunity from bombardment.

We didn't develop high-end gaming computers just to play paper-rock-scissors with stompy robots.

Absolutely +1

[Jale]

You are spending too much time on weapon systems that you forgot on others, making weapon system main balance in the game shading others.
There is one that's called "Information warfare".

I totally agree with you guys about weapon system and i prefer mw4 semi-quasi hardpoint system which doesn't necessarily take away too much time, because you don't have to visually change mechlab just simply input (example given): machine gun - light ballistic or AC/20 - heavy ballistic.

ECM should go in every chassis, possible for every variant because the thing that devs did in current version of MWO is unforgivable. I hope for better tomorrow.

Scout mech will be recognizable from the supporter or other roles by simply implementing a new system that devs wanted to bring new to the game: "Pilot tree" ( current version has only module section if you saw on that "pilot tree sheet" there is room for more than just modules, but more to come) like scout tree, assault tree, support tree, long range encounter, blah blah blah...

Edited by Jale, 09 January 2013 - 04:37 PM.