45 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

focuspark, on 28 February 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

I was under the impression that this was a bug to be fixed. It would go wonderfully towards nerfing SRM boats (in some cases) but doesn't do much for LRM as they're nearly fire and forget anyways.

Still - would be better than what we have now.

you are forced to maintain lock longer. with my hunchback if i lose lock while missiles are streaming out any missiles that leave the tubes without lock are dumbfired and WILL NOT track the target even if lock is reacquired.

MQ9 Reaper Predator Drone, on 28 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

and what about those 9 slot flashlight boats ?
nerfing misile hp's is going to badly imbalance the game if you consider the 4-5x PPC builds or the 4x5 ac's

fix the problems as we find solutions from them. if your boat is sinking you don't wait until you find all of the leaks before you begin patching the ones you have found.

besides i think the heat on PPC pretty thoroughly balance those out. wait for them to fire 2 shots and destroy them while they are napping.

[MQ9 Reaper Predator Drone]

blinkin, on 28 February 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

you are forced to maintain lock longer. with my hunchback if i lose lock while missiles are streaming out any missiles that leave the tubes without lock are dumbfired and WILL NOT track the target even if lock is reacquired.


fix the problems as we find solutions from them. if your boat is sinking you don't wait until you find all of the leaks before you begin patching the ones you have found.

besides i think the heat on PPC pretty thoroughly balance those out. wait for them to fire 2 shots and destroy them while they are napping.

its not so much that my boat is sinking, its that once you start sinking boats you change the whole core of batletech universe.
so far i understand that partyboats have been part of batletech since day one.
mwo without boats is like a party of one...

[Gladewolf]

Alright OP...Let's get to the heart of this........So you want to limit LRMs based on mounted hardpoints....what about laser and ballistic mounts? Do you really beleive that is a fair and ballanced way to approach the "problem"? From what i've read here....you don't seem to have any really objection to the 6 SRM Cat......but massive issues with LRM boats.....Even though there have been several changes made to missle flight paths so that you can take cover.......Even with the addition of ECM....we STILL have threads asking basically to nerf LRMs. How about this.....Instead of potentially causing months worth of reworks on already established mechs(when i'd like to see more new content)......Try taking cover.....for the love of all that is holy....just try it.

[Jack Spade Ward]

MQ9 Reaper Predator Drone, on 28 February 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

and what about those 9 slot flashlight boats ?
nerfing misile hp's is going to badly imbalance the game if you consider the 4-5x PPC builds or the 4x5 ac's

Thats why hardpoints should have weight and space limits

[Lex Peregrine]

Gladewolf, on 28 February 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Alright OP...Let's get to the heart of this........So you want to limit LRMs based on mounted hardpoints....what about laser and ballistic mounts? Do you really beleive that is a fair and ballanced way to approach the "problem"? From what i've read here....you don't seem to have any really objection to the 6 SRM Cat......but massive issues with LRM boats.....Even though there have been several changes made to missle flight paths so that you can take cover.......Even with the addition of ECM....we STILL have threads asking basically to nerf LRMs. How about this.....Instead of potentially causing months worth of reworks on already established mechs(when i'd like to see more new content)......Try taking cover.....for the love of all that is holy....just try it.

Actually I only refer to LRMs when I say AMS is too weak currently, and the take cover comment is so basic, why dont we all just take cover and let the LRM boats be kings of the hill, then wait until the timer runs out to go play again.
I do complain about the SRM boats like the shotgun Cat, there should be some rules that help to balance such configs, and I proposed a logical one that although it doesnt prevent it, it will cause some disadvantages in the form of wasted weight. If an arm has 3 missile hard points but only designed for 15 missile tubes, then no more than 15 missiles should come out of that arm. Then the devs just have to balance other variants, the ones designed for 20 missile tubes will not suffer from exploiting if they only have 1 or 2 missile hard points, you can put 1 LRM20 or 2 LRM10 in it, or 2 SRM6, but not 3 SRM6 (no hardpoints) or 2 LRM15 (no tubes).

[Jack Spade Ward]

Gladewolf, on 28 February 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Alright OP...Let's get to the heart of this........So you want to limit LRMs based on mounted hardpoints....what about laser and ballistic mounts? Do you really beleive that is a fair and ballanced way to approach the "problem"? From what i've read here....you don't seem to have any really objection to the 6 SRM Cat......but massive issues with LRM boats.....Even though there have been several changes made to missle flight paths so that you can take cover.......Even with the addition of ECM....we STILL have threads asking basically to nerf LRMs. How about this.....Instead of potentially causing months worth of reworks on already established mechs(when i'd like to see more new content)......Try taking cover.....for the love of all that is holy....just try it.

No one is saying that lasers and balistic mounts shouldnt fall on the same rule, limited to the mech and its variants hardpoints.
This sugestion is just to make the game with a feeling of being a bit more "real", and not arcade with overpowerd variants like the shotguncat. Models and its variants would always be limited to their hardpoints. A CAT-C1 for example, could only fit 2 missiles limited to the 15 tubes that it has on each arm/ears, so you could fit a LRM15---LRM5 and the SRM versions. Same rule to C4 and A1.
The rule should be aplied to the balistic and lasers mounts also.
But i also add to Lex's sugestion the fact that hardpoints should also have weight and space limits. For example: an Atlas D comes with an AC20, 14 Tons, 2 balistic hardpoints. So you can mount there a maximum of 14 Tons and 2 balistic weapons. Another example: an Ilya comes with 2 AC5 and one AC10. In the AC10 you can mount a an inferio AC, but never an AC20.

[FrostCollar]

My main problem with this comes from the simple fact that LRMs have many more missile tubes than SRMs. Converting an LRM mech to an SRM mech would still result in massive barrages of pain, but the alternative really isn't possible. Right now it's my impression that SRMs are a far greater problem than LRMs because of ECM, small maps, and minimum range. This suggestion therefore seems to fall disproportionately on the type of missile that is in less need of a nerf.

[Lex Peregrine]

FrostCollar, on 28 February 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

My main problem with this comes from the simple fact that LRMs have many more missile tubes than SRMs. Converting an LRM mech to an SRM mech would still result in massive barrages of pain, but the alternative really isn't possible. Right now it's my impression that SRMs are a far greater problem than LRMs because of ECM, small maps, and minimum range. This suggestion therefore seems to fall disproportionately on the type of missile that is in less need of a nerf.

But you're forgetting about the number of hard points, most mechs that have an LRM15 or 20 only have 1 or 2 missile hard points you can use to replace it, so even with 2 SRM6 you would only take 12 missile tubes. The Cat with 6 missile hard points I think is one of the few exceptions, but if we combine that with a limit of the number of tubes, that variant only has a total of 30 tubes, cant fit 6 SRM6 that way.

[Jack Spade Ward]

FrostCollar, on 28 February 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

My main problem with this comes from the simple fact that LRMs have many more missile tubes than SRMs. Converting an LRM mech to an SRM mech would still result in massive barrages of pain, but the alternative really isn't possible. Right now it's my impression that SRMs are a far greater problem than LRMs because of ECM, small maps, and minimum range. This suggestion therefore seems to fall disproportionately on the type of missile that is in less need of a nerf.

Wouldn be a nerf if ECM would be rearranged to what its supposed to be: to reduce a mechs signal, not to completly kill its signature. But for that, radars should be implemented, not what its now implemented, a line of sight radar signature. But the way it is now, you can appear on someone's back without him noticing. With a radar, that wouldn happened

[FrostCollar]

Lex Peregrine, on 28 February 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

But you're forgetting about the number of hard points, most mechs that have an LRM15 or 20 only have 1 or 2 missile hard points you can use to replace it, so even with 2 SRM6 you would only take 12 missile tubes. The Cat with 6 missile hard points I think is one of the few exceptions, but if we combine that with a limit of the number of tubes, that variant only has a total of 30 tubes, cant fit 6 SRM6 that way.

Point of clarification: you're proposing that hardpoints and number of missile tubes be used to restrict what weapons go where?

Also, I'm talking about all mechs, not just the Cats. There are many relatively benign builds, like the LRM Raven, that would be made completely impossible while other builds would be unaffected.

[Lex Peregrine]

Yes.
Well I havent checked every variant of every mech, but there are variants of the same mech with different numbers of missile tubes.

[Gladewolf]

I just don't get this. So let me ask...what sort of mechs do those of you with missle issues run?

Spadejack, on 28 February 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

No one is saying that lasers and balistic mounts shouldnt fall on the same rule, limited to the mech and its variants hardpoints.
This sugestion is just to make the game with a feeling of being a bit more "real", and not arcade with overpowerd variants like the shotguncat. Models and its variants would always be limited to their hardpoints. A CAT-C1 for example, could only fit 2 missiles limited to the 15 tubes that it has on each arm/ears, so you could fit a LRM15---LRM5 and the SRM versions. Same rule to C4 and A1.
The rule should be aplied to the balistic and lasers mounts also.
But i also add to Lex's sugestion the fact that hardpoints should also have weight and space limits. For example: an Atlas D comes with an AC20, 14 Tons, 2 balistic hardpoints. So you can mount there a maximum of 14 Tons and 2 balistic weapons. Another example: an Ilya comes with 2 AC5 and one AC10. In the AC10 you can mount a an inferio AC, but never an AC20.

"More real".....So like when Japan screamed "OMG Nukes are so OP" ...Or the same as the first Iraq war when Sadam shouted "B-52s carry too many bombs...that's sooo gota be nerfed"

-NOTHING about this game is real..what it is to me is a lot of fun. Now please again, in a manner that is Grounded in reality, tell us how making all these changes improve the game. Do you really believe their won't be min maxing with whatever is left to us? Maybe i'm just jaded, but what are you really attempting to achieve with this? What sort of mech do you enjoy running?

Edited by Gladewolf, 28 February 2013 - 07:17 PM.

[FerrolupisXIII]

Gladewolf i think youre entirely missing the point. to use your example...

what if that B-52 could magically drop MORE BOMBS because we crammed some more into the cargo bays? that wouldn't make ay sense but that's essentially what many mechs are doing. these thoughts on limiting missiles by hard point and tube count directly relate to things like "why can the K2 swap machine guns for the heaviest ballistics in the game?" which has always been a subject of much debate on these forums.

you're essentially saying "its totally not broken at all, these mechanics aren't weird!"

but they are. these guys raise many good, logical points about the missile system, and there are many known, and admitted glitches in the system. a good example being that stacked launchers actually do not cause the odd stream fire, only when you put in an oversize one. this is a weird mechanic, and they're suggesting a fix/ limit to it.

you ask what sort of mechs we run. i personally have all 4 Catapults mastered, and own a founders C1. I primarily run LRM centric builds, and i have since closed beta. i'd like to think i know a thing or two about the subject, and as you can see, this seems like a logical step, and helps give many less used chassis a real bonus. honestly, how many stalker 3H's do you see compared to the others? how about the C1 and C4 catapults? the Hunchback 4j? all of what should be their builds are usually done better on another variant, or have been turned into SRM spam fests, because that's what the game has encouraged for so long

[Gladewolf]

Thank you FerroLupis, that was a more compelling argument from someone that plays with at least Catapults...now will you concede that this plan doesn't really do much to the splat cat(if you believe it's elimination should be a goal), while railroading Assault Class mechs into being only as effective at a role as a heavy mech? From what i've seen, the most informed splat users don't use a full boat of SRM-6s anyway,(too ammo intensive) and can be seen using both the A-1 and C4. have you seen the new double ERPPC/LRM-15, C1? Personnally, I'd rather see the Devs develop interactive skins that explain what your mech has mounted on it, instead of restricting mechs based on the current "picture" of what you see before you. In my eyes the best fix for short range specialist mechs is more big maps.

There are MANY designs out there that wind up with either a Big weapon in a small hole(Many Cataphracts that use PPCs use the torso medium laser mounts as an example), or more weapons than holes exsist. And several that use far less than what is displayed ....but the DEVs have already taken steps to place some interactive mounts on mechs, just give them time, or request that they do the rest.

You have to understand that for someone like me that ENJOYS designing mechs...this entire conversation is pretty much the Anti-Christ, so i do get that i'm perhaps seriously biased.

I currently run the Cat-C1(F)/K2, Atlas D-DC/DC, 3 Trebuchet models(their numbers escape me) a Flame, Ravens 3L/ 4X and the Com-2D.

I have mastered additionally, the Jenner, Cat-A1 and Cataphracts except the D which i have currentlly taken out of my line-up, because they just don't fit for me. Of the rest, I have at least tried(except the Cicada..which i can't stant to look at), but didn't like either the handling or choices available for size.

To get back to the "real" question...do you really believe that weapons designers can't come up with a rapid fire missle launcher in the next 1000 years?

Edited by Gladewolf, 01 March 2013 - 04:57 AM.

[FerrolupisXIII]

Gladewolf, on 01 March 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

To get back to the "real" question...do you really believe that weapons designers can't come up with a rapid fire missle launcher in the next 1000 years?

Knowing Battle Tech, they probably did. And then forgot while they blasted the bajesus out of one another during the wars.

all joking aside, you're quite right. the suggested idea would not do a lot to the A1. 30 missiles instead of 36. this mostly prevents people from mashing a big LRM launcher into what was once a small SRM point. (see the reference to the 2x LRM-20 4SP) same for say the 3x SRM-6 D-Dc that is so popular, the D-DC has 26 missile tubes in its left torso. in fact, im having trouble thinking of very many instances where this would actually effect common builds that aren't LRM boats

Now, one thing to keep in mind on your comment on making these heavies as effective as the assaults at LRM support.

Thats what the Catapult is supposed to do. it was designed to carry heavy LRM support. two of the assault variants (one awesome, one stalker) are designed to be true LRM support mechs. i'm a huge Catapult fan boy to be fair, and i'm one of the seemingly rare pilots that still uses my Cat's in their intended role. none of this SRM's and AC-20 nonsense for me.

We have yet to see an assault chassis that is built around LRM support. the Awesome is classically a PPC boat, with one variant that makes a admittedly pretty good LRM boat (sort of like the K2 of the series, its the odd duck) the same can be said of the stalker, its supposed to be able to engage at many different ranges. even its LRM heavy build has a pretty scarey backup load out, in stock config. the Atlas is again a mixed range mech, using its LRM armaments to soften up targets as it makes its way across the field.

Until we get something like a Longbow-12c, i have no problem with a dedicated LRM Heavy Mech being able to keep up with Assault mechs in LRM roles.

Now, while i obviously agree customization and mech designs are very fun, and i love tweaking my designs to suit my play style (hint: I rarely pilot what are considered "good" LRM spam builds. they're stupid and gimmicky usually.) i still think that some of the things we are allowed to do are absurd.

I can, (and have!) for example, cram an LRM-20 into the NARC tube in a ravens arm. while i would love to see the model change, wouldn't that require something akin to the CPLT-C4's arm to be hanging off of this poor raven? i know in BT lore there are many versions of weapons but that just does not translate for what we are doing here. Essentially, while i too would love to see models change for what we equip, there still should be a limit to how much we can do. this includes things like the AC's and Energy as well. i think the commando would look pretty silly with an awesome or catapult PPC barrel hanging off its arm if you so chose to slap one into it, don't you? at least the catapult might not look quite so off balance and silly with say an atlas's AC-20 hip pack slung under the nose. and then we can shoot it too!

I do understand the point you are making, and it is a good one. customization is a great thing. but the mechanics involved need improving, and this thread happens to be focused on the Missile Hardpoints and Tube Count interaction. which when you get down to it is currently a very flawed system, and this is one way of improving it.

[Strig]

Gladewolf, on 28 February 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

I just don't get this. So let me ask...what sort of mechs do those of you with missle issues run?



"More real".....So like when Japan screamed "OMG Nukes are so OP" ...Or the same as the first Iraq war when Sadam shouted "B-52s carry too many bombs...that's sooo gota be nerfed"

What sort of mech do you enjoy running?

It is not about "more real" specifically. But it is a valid balancing technique based on the values and designs already present in the mechs and the game.

I have mastered all 4 Catapults. I have mastered the 3 Atlases worth having and I have elited 3 hunchbacks, 3 dragons, 3 cataphracts (1 mastered) 3 stalkers (1 mastered). I have basic complete on the Raven 3L (ECM), the Cicada 3M (ECM) and quite a few others and just bought 3 trebuchets.

I love missiles. They are currently the most used and abused weapon in the game (PPCs are coming into their own now too ...)

Don't get me wrong. I don't think we need to be NERFing them because they are OMGWTFBBQ overpowered. I think we should take what the OP said and consider it because it makes good sense, and it makes certain mechs more valuable because they are designed to use LRM20s or have the right number of tubes. It also makes some mechs a little less powerful but only with certain builds because they are not designed to do what they do currently.

It is a reasonable, valid and desirable change.

Edited by Strig, 01 March 2013 - 07:18 AM.

[Lex Peregrine]

What Strig said!

And to be clear, I too agree missiles are not the only type of weapon that is being exploited, AC20 in a Raven? AC20 in side torso of a Catapult? Stalkers with 5 or 6 PPCs? cmon... but I choose not to adress these types at this time, as my sugestion appears to work for missiles, but for the other types some other reasoning has to be found.

I tend to agree as well with MW4's system of hardpoints with sizes, but I know people who are totally against it because it limits mech customization too much, so I choose not to go that far, but I would support the dev team if they went that way, or some sort of compromise.

Oh, we should keep another thing in mind, for those who say it would be better if for instances when we replace an LRM15 for an LRM20, the mech's looks should be updated with the increased number of tubes, instead of limiting the customization because of it, you're thinking of these weapon hardpoints as modular. This is a characteristic of clan mechs, one of their advantage over the Inner Sphere, in this case I agree with the idea of changing the look of the weapon to reflect the changes, but Inner Sphere mechs are not as adaptable, it should be taken into consideration as well.

[armchairyoda]

Fine, I'll be the one to say this out loud:
THESE ARE ALL TERRIBLE IDEAS.

After reading these posts (a true test of endurance), there is one common theme- Everybody in favor of this *feels* that this would limit builds that they consider too "not-canon"/"cheese"/"IWIN BUTTAN".

Sorry, but that makes it hard to justify a revamp of nearly every gundam in the game based on perception that these builds offend your sensibilities.

What about canon builds like... hmmm... the
Hollander?
Rifleman?
Jaegermech?
Bombardier?
Black Knight?

All of them were interchangeable from stock (what you'd term) "cheese", to custom "cheese".

Half the fun of BT was messing around with builds seeing what you could cram into them. MWO is already somewhat limiting this with the hardpoints they established, and you should REALLY be thankful for that.

Just imagine the /ragequits over the 4 AC/20 Atlas build that I'd run ALL THE TIME just to spite the spergy fanfic types here...

PGI GIVE ME MY 4 AC/20 ATLAS OR I WANT MAH MONIES BACK!

PS- Legs are OP.

[FerrolupisXIII]

armchairyoda, on 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

*snip*

.... they brought a cave troll ...

[Strig]

armchairyoda, on 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

... well ...

Those mechs aren't in the game yet and when they are they will be designed to do what they do ...

<RANT>
This isn't Battletech. Battletech was HORRIBLY IMBALANCED. Great game. Love it. But HORRIBLY IMBALANCED. THIS is a different game and plays by different rules (and NEEDS to do so). Where it can, it does (and should) try to maintain the spirit and lore of Battletech. AND MWO DOES THIS. However, I should have reasons to use any chassis. I should be able to find builds that make use of any weapon or piece of equipment (flamers, MGs, NARC) that is offered. This game should not include stuff that was crap in BT and maintain its status as crap because that's how BT did it.
</RANT>

I still thoroughly enjoy messing around with my builds in MWO. Limits are important to maintain some balance and they actually increase creative builds.

Also. Did you "LIKE" your own post? Really?

Edited by Strig, 01 March 2013 - 09:07 AM.