Jump to content

Curiosity About Overpowered 'mechs/weaponry


83 replies to this topic

#1 RazorbeastFXK3

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:07 AM

I keep seeing complaints about how certain 'mech variants are OP (OverPowered?) and cries about how they absolutely need to be nerfed..

My curiosity leads me to ask.. "What makes the original unaltered 'mech design "overpowered"?"

I thought games like these were supposed to be filled with challenges for us to learn and adapt to introductions of new features instead of trying to make the new features dulled down to what we are used to being able to handle.

I understand there are things that only money can grant us access to that freeloaders like myself can only access with the chance of participating in/winning a challenge.. but are all these modifications and adjustments adhering to the game specs or are all the "nerfs" being made solely on the cries and complaints of players who just can't handle the introduction of the new features to mwomercs?

Then.. there are the complaints of "omfg wat r u doin! u ruin game 4 me! i quit!" because what they're used to gets changed/nerfed to the point where they must adjust their playstyle or move on to using a different 'mech because they believe the adjustment rendered their original playstyle completely useless.

Personally, I have no problems with the adjustments as they haven't really affected me much if at all in a negative way. But it still makes me wonder about the original idea of the game being adjusted so much to where it feels like we're playing an entirely different game.

#2 divinedisclaimer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 280 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:24 AM

Basically just dual gauss shouldn't exist, that's my only complaint. As far as game design goes the introduction of mechs that can carry two gauss guns and other weapons as well is too much damage, even for themselves. The spin-up is no challenge to many players.

Even if you just hard-locked that weapon to single-use-per-mech, it would still be useful due to it's insane projectile speed and awesome range. You just wouldn't be killing mechs in two hits with it.

Edited by divinedisclaimer, 24 October 2014 - 10:25 AM.


#3 Angel of Annihilation

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Infernal
  • The Infernal
  • 8,872 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:24 AM

Most if not all aren't actually OP rather they are just good and anything good much be nerfed until it is bad or so sayth the community.

#4 divinedisclaimer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 280 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:27 AM

View PostViktor Drake, on 24 October 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

Most if not all aren't actually OP rather they are just good and anything good much be nerfed until it is bad or so sayth the community.


It comes down to pilot skill a lot.

People were saying Dire Wolves were OP, including the "top tier" clans; which made me laugh because they of all people should know that having those walking turrets is as much a liability as it is an advantage since the other team could collectively be moving up to 30kph faster than your entire group.

#5 Alexander MacTaggart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 490 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:28 AM

View Postdivinedisclaimer, on 24 October 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

Basically just dual gauss shouldn't exist, that's my only complaint. As far as game design goes the introduction of mechs that can carry two gauss guns and other weapons as well is too much damage, even for themselves. The spin-up is no challenge to many players.


The problem isn't even dual gauss. The problem is that gauss is front-loaded pinpoint damage that goes exactly where you aim it and players can shove it on any chassis with the hardpoints for it whether it should be on there or not.

Unfortunately I don't see a 'fix' for these particular issues (the defining thing about gauss versus AC is that gauss is one slug, so there's no real way to 'fix' the FL-PPD thing). Maybe if you could only charge one gauss at a time and couldn't start charging a second until the first fires? I got nothing.

#6 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:32 AM

A machine gun is OP with the right pilot at the trigger, under the right conditions...

So it really does depend on whom you ask...

Me, I think my usual saying when it comes to bad mechs...

"There are no bad mechs, just bad pilots pilots whom do not number stand that mech."

would apply, just a little different..

"Nothing is OP, you are either good with it, or you're not. If it killed you, smarten up, and learn the weakness of the unit and exploit that weakness."

#7 Voivode

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hungry
  • The Hungry
  • 1,465 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:37 AM

The biggest problem is that the original TT game was based on a system of weighted probabilities (dice rolls where certain ranges qualify as hits/misses) in turn based combat while the video game version has aiming and real time combat. That has always been the difficulty in games based on Battletech intellectual properties. That;s why in the past very watered down, arcade-like versions were made. This game, while not adhering religiously to the rules of TT, is much closer than past games. This has accentuated the disconnect between aiming vs weighted probabilistic weapon hits and turn based vs real time combat. Some weapons and mechs have benefited more than others in this regard.

That said, I've played this game for over two years. The current balance between mechs and weapons is the best I've seen it. There is room for improvement, but balance feels more solid than it has in the past.

#8 TamCoan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 352 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:41 AM

From a pure design standpoint, anything that can destroy the opponent, has no counter and no drawbacks would be considered to be over-powered. Dual gauss+dual ppc is one such case. (Yes I know that the DW chassis has many drawbacks.) Balance is the effort to either introduce drawbacks or prevent said load-out from dominating.

As I've been on both the giving and receiving end of this type of equation, I have to agree that it sucks. As a player, it's pure awesomeness to shoot an unstoppable, pinpoint alpha into a mech and see it vanish. (Did that to an airborne shadowhawk and it was pure awesome.) On the flip side, it also sucks when you get hit with such a volley and know there was nothing you could do to stop it.

In most cases what people think is over-powered is just griping. In some cases it truly is overpowered and gets adjusted. The key is to take the emotion of all involved parties out of the equation and base it on pure logic and analysis.

#9 terrycloth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 769 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:52 AM

Dual gauss would be OP if it auto-aimed for you. As it is, it's deadly in the hands of someone who's really good and kind of okay for anyone else.

You know what was the most annoying death I've had? When a Jenner managed to keep his six medium lasers on target through the entire burn duration on my Raven's tiny side torso. At 300m. While I was moving. Three times in a row.

Nerf skill. It's OP.

#10 Metus regem

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 10,282 posts
  • LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:58 AM

View Postterrycloth, on 24 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Dual gauss would be OP if it auto-aimed for you. As it is, it's deadly in the hands of someone who's really good and kind of okay for anyone else.

You know what was the most annoying death I've had? When a Jenner managed to keep his six medium lasers on target through the entire burn duration on my Raven's tiny side torso. At 300m. While I was moving. Three times in a row.

Nerf skill. It's OP.


Still loved the time I managed to sneak up on a Raven 3L with ECM up, while in my Timber Wolf in D configuration on Terra Therma, and one shotted it from behind with 2 cERPPC and 4 cSRM 6's...

Bet that pilot was so mad...

#11 BTone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 160 posts
  • LocationLuthien

Posted 24 October 2014 - 10:59 AM

View Postterrycloth, on 24 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Nerf skill. It's OP.


Wow, I think you captured the antithesis of every OP thread on the forums.

#12 RazorbeastFXK3

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:01 AM

Seeing a lot of good points on original 'mech design and original weapon functions between table top and action-base models.

Brought to mind about 'mech chasis designs where someone throws an AC20 or a Gauss Rifle on a Raven and the Raven doesn't start running lop-sided but that's just common sense and doesn't apply to how games work I guess.

I guess with the absense of the dice roll factor it does have a large impact on game design where instead of relying on a multi-sided stone to tell you how accurate your aim will be against the opponent you now must rely on a steady hand and better reaction time/timing of shots to get close to 100% effect of attack.

But what about the original build of 'mechs? Why should we shove a plug in certain features of the original 'mech designs to even the playing field between ones who shell out money to buy features and ones who play the game for what they can get out of it for free?

I mean.. I've piloted a Locust against a Direwolf that was caught by itself and managed to take it down with no assist. But with all the adjustments and "nerfs" I'm starting to wonder if it was based on my skill as a pilot or did the adjustments to the Direwolf's original design play a part in it?

#13 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:04 AM

View PostBTone, on 24 October 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:


Wow, I think you captured the antithesis of every OP thread on the forums.


Well, there is the other issue that all weapons magically converge to a single pixel; that is a bit of a gameplay issue.


Never going to be addressed, of course.

#14 mogs01gt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 4,292 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:04 AM

Mech design + map design + team comp= some will always be OP.

#15 Aresye

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 3,462 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:06 AM

A lot of players just seem to...

There's no way to not put this bluntly...

A lot of players suck and can't aim to save their life. When they get killed, they complain. End of story.

#16 RazorbeastFXK3

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationSyracuse, NY

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:08 AM

With Weapon Convergence, that would be a great point to bring up where the Hard Points of the L/C/R Torso shouldn't be able to adjust themselves to unload upon a single pixel where the Arms (if they have side motion) are able to. Then again.. I don't know if lasers/ballistics should be able to adjust themselves in the L/C/R Torso Hard Points or not. Might be another Common Sense vs Game Sense battle.

View PostMcgral18, on 24 October 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:


Well, there is the other issue that all weapons magically converge to a single pixel; that is a bit of a gameplay issue.


Never going to be addressed, of course.


#17 Eddrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 1,493 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanyon Lake, TX.

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:30 AM

I haven't really had any complaints. At most, some concerns. Mostly, from people turning Mechs into something then what they were made for. But, the upcoming weapon quirks may help that.

Instant and pinpoint weapon convergence is the root of a lot of the problems. Personaly, I'm in favor of removing convergance entirly. Since, a return of delayed convergance is out of the question.

#18 The Driver

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 43 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:34 AM



Nerf Explosions, they are OP!

...or y'know, I coulda just pressed Z sooner :)

#19 SuomiWarder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 1,661 posts
  • LocationSacramento area, California

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:38 AM

With the Clan Mechs we are seeing designs that can core a medium in one hit from the front - something that originally the design team worked to avoid allowing to happen, nerfing weapons and weapon combos to make sure it did not happen. They did not want players that had not done anything stupid (only lined up a shot which requires exposing yourself) to get one shot-ed.

However that concern does not seem to apply to Clan mechs. Of course, Clanners can one shot each other as welI.

I predict that the Clan V IS invasion battles will start to run out of IS defenders as IS pilots get tired of the firepower difference.

#20 terrycloth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 769 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 11:43 AM

For realism, lasers should be able to fire at almost any angle out of the projector. Missiles should all be able to turn in flight. Ballistics, not so much, although putting the guns on gimbals isn't exactly rocket science.

PPCs -- who knows? I mean, the realistic way to make a 'lightning gun' is to ionize a pathway through the air that the lightning will follow, so I guess they'd be as aimable as lasers.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users