152 replies to this topic

[Banditman]

Lyrik, on 06 March 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

The problem is that PGI is sticking to cannon variants of mechs. BIG mistake. Thats why we have such stupid like the A1. Or stalkers with 6 PPC's.

But I don't know if introducing big/small hardpoints would be better. It would reduce diversity for the non powergamer :-)

You're completely wrong. PGI's problem is that they did not stick to canon variants. If the A1 was built to canon standards, it would have 1 Missile hardpoint in each arm . . . and that's all. That is canon.

In point of fact, the only canon Catapult that could claim more than two missile hardpoints is the 'Butterbee', a custom variant in Lore that PGI probably should have made as a Hero mech. However, in doing that, PGI would have been dragged over the coals as catering to "Pay to win".

PGI has talked on and off since early in closed beta about some sort of "penalty" for multiple instances of the same weapon in a given configuration, but have never taken any action on it. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, but it has been talked about.

[Critical Fumble]

StalaggtIKE, on 06 March 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I feel that LRM are pretty weak, which is why they must be boated in order to be effective. I want boating to be addressed with LRM, so that they can be properly balanced and made effective without the need of boating. This would lead to less specialized builds, so we don't have long range LRM builds vs close range brawlers all the time. Or players groaning because they've dropped on a large map: Alpine.

There are two major forces pulling against the effectiveness of LRMs that I think need to be addressed before LRMs can ever be a passable secondary or tertiary armament.

The first is how painfully slow they are. To the point where it could be more the target's fault for not running to cover rather than the effectiveness of the user. Its the only weapon system that you can actually DODGE.

The second part is that, because of something we've shared a fair number of posts on, they need TAG to be used reliably. The fact that they need an energy hardpoint to be worth taking makes it wasteful to not boat them.

[Ender Targaryen]

I have never understood the complaints around boating.
I tried a splat-cat to see what all the hype was about - hated it. You have to give up heat efficiency, speed, and god-forbid if you want artemis, then armor goes out the door completely. the mech sucked (to me) and when I see one, I know exactly how to deal with it. Run quickly around it, or if in a heavy, take out those arms ASAP. The one cheap kill I got after 5 games or so was a fully-armored Raven happen to crest a hill at the same time and I hit him point-blank. Cheap kill, admittedly, but does that really happen that often?

I do really enjoy my 4 LRM15-Artemis stalker. Major drawback with him is you get within 180m of me and I'm useless (1 ER PPC). Lights will tear me to shreds. Not to mention, as someone mentioned, LRMs are only truly useful when the target is TAGged, so yes, I can devastate an Atlas if he is standing out in the open in my line of site and then just sits there thinking "Oh I'm an Atlas, i can soak up the damage".

It comes down to strategy, use that HUD section in the top-right, see what their armament is and plan accordingly. Yes, occasionally you will be alpha'ed by an unseen splat-cat, but if you use strategy, it will be occasional.

Gauss/PPC builds, never had a real issue, once again, use cover. They get lucky shots sometimes as well, it's the nature of the game.

[Tombstoner]

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 06 March 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

I'm not trolling or anything, but I just don't get it: why everyone thinks that this so called "boating" is something bad? Why are 3 srm6 OK, but 5 are not? I mean what is the logic behind this? Could anyone enlighten me?

simple answer is- Its the lack of a random hit location.- as it is all damage hits the targeted location for ppc's and gause ac rounds. for srm the closer you are damage concentrates. for lasers its easier to target a specific location on slower larger mechs. this is in effect a buff to fast and small mechs and nerf to larger slower mechs. when you load up on a specific weapon for linked fire knowing that all the damage will hit the same location you are cheesing the system. a huge design flaw.
i think almost all TT players can see this, but we are not the target audience.

As it exists in MWO damage is combined with your chance to hit. in TT it was 2 separate rolls. that means 4 medium lasers where weaker then an ac-20. yes the ML where lighter and made similar amounts of heat with no ammo but the damage was spread all over the mech. as it is if i can hold on to a torso location with 4 ml its more powerful then the ac-20. basically weapon balance was tossed out the window when pip point targeting was implemented and lots of people this this is skill.

All damage, heat. range, weight, crit size, hit points are broken.i be-leave its also why double HS needed to be nerfed to 1.4 HS. its also why flamers and mg will always suck unless they are buffed to absurd levels. all that was needed was some form of cone of fire to slightly randomize hit location. a nerf to concentrated damage when boating. as for LRM's even if you limited mech to 2 max there are 8 on your team. that means you can still face 16x lrm 20's that will gut anything in the open as it should. boating LRM's are easily countered with good game play like using cover, as it should. 6x ppc's on a pop tart i have an issue with.

PGI has stuck to cannon when it shouldn't have and changed things that shouldn't have. have i made a million dollar computer game before ... no. but i do work in R&D doing multi factor formulation optimizations for a multi million dollar product line, i have played everything BT since its first incarnation as battle droids in 1984. additionayl i am a computer gamer since 1984. so yea i consider myself uniquely qualified to comment.

[StalaggtIKE]

Critical Fumble, on 06 March 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

There are two major forces pulling against the effectiveness of LRMs that I think need to be addressed before LRMs can ever be a passable secondary or tertiary armament.

The first is how painfully slow they are. To the point where it could be more the target's fault for not running to cover rather than the effectiveness of the user. Its the only weapon system that you can actually DODGE.

The second part is that, because of something we've shared a fair number of posts on, they need TAG to be used reliably. The fact that they need an energy hardpoint to be worth taking makes it wasteful to not boat them.

Agreed. The fact you are required to take a laser hardpoint to use missile hardpoint is just..., I can't even come up with a word to describe it:

[StalaggtIKE]

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 06 March 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

And what is exactly wrong in specialised builds?

Absolutely nothing. However it shouldn't be mandatory in order to make LRM effective.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 06 March 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[Mr Blonde]

I find that most of the Munchkin builds (6 streaks, 6 SRM 6's, 6 PPC's) are the easiest to kill. Just long-range the SRM cats, and go around the slow PPC shots in a spider, get inside his minimum range, and shred him. My little spiders will kill those slow SRM cats too. I did a cheesy Stalker build just to see if I could (4 LRM 20's with Artemis, a couple of pea-shooter side weapons). It's devastating except when someone gets close and then it's dead. Hardly one I rely on regularly. A K-2 with 2 AC20's is just a small King Crab, so these builds do exist in TT. 2 Gauss builds abound in TT. 4 LPL's? I tried it with a stalker, but TT has our friendly Rifleman IIC. Lest we forget TT's LRM and SRM carriers, the ultimate in cheese except when the Clans gave us the absurd Hunchback IIC. Common theme among all these mechs and vehicles? They have gigantic weaknesses, and as a maxed out build are usually targeted first and annihilated before they can do serious damage. Bottom line, I lick my chops when I see these builds and prepare to rack up stats. At the same time, they can be fun to play if you get lucky or have a good coordinated team.

[Mr Blonde]

Hit location is more of a problem. Only time a light with linked laser misses a pinpoint location is when it trips on terrain or something similar. Perhaps that is what is simulated in TT with randomized location. I have a thought though. Perhaps those laser and ballistic housings require a little shock absorption, and the barrels move a bit. Ever see an Abrams moving at top speed? The main gun is stabilized, but nevertheless it's bouncing around some. Generally tanks don't shoot on the run if they don't have to, they stop and wait to line everything up, right? So when these mechs are running around at 80-100 kph, maybe there's a little randomness to the angle the shot comes out, perhaps 1-5%. Not going to mean much point blank, but if you're at medium range and moving top speed then you'll spray shots all over the mech and get misses too, maybe fixing a little of the light mech problem there (personally I am guilty of circle strafing the crap out of the big guys, I can admit).

[Schrottfrosch]

From my experience certain builds or mechs or weapons are not the problem, but the people:

Most gamers seem not to employ proper risk assessment. They run off and try to engage multiple enemies at the same time, they run into the open just to stop right there trying to snipe enemy mechs while being rained upon with LRMs, they ignore greater threats like an Atlas, a Splatcat or whatever to shoot at a Jenner or a Raven. Just play a few games as a pug and look at what people are doing - 90% of them are plainly stupid - sorry that I have to say this, but thats what I experience everytime I am pugging. Sometimes I wonder how my team even won a certain match - but if you think you have seen all the stupidity in the world someone comes around and tops it...

[StalaggtIKE]

Some form of deviation or spread would be ideal.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sybreed, on 05 March 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

This is just a reminder for people who want some weapon systems to be nerfed (notably, LRMs and SRMs)

These systems, when used by TT "standards", by this I mean 2XLRM15, 2XLRM20, 1XLRM20, 2xLRM10, 1xLRM10 (mediums anyone?), etc, are balanced.

It's when a mech can fire 50-60 LRMs or more at once that they become a problem.

It's when a mech can fire 18-30 SRMs at once that they are a problem.

So, don't blame the game imbalance on the weapons, blame it on your precious mech customization and the fact that PGI let you boat anything.

If you nerf weapon systems, you will hurt more those guys who want to use balanced builds than the boaters.

And I will say it again: Boats are not generally the problem.

The problems are:
- Overpowered weapons. People don't generally boat FLamers or MGs or other sucktastic weapons. They pick the best weapos they can find and use them together.
- Convergence. Boats can benefit from convergence like no other type of mech. If you fire a Gauss Rifle and a MEdium Laser together against a moving target, one of them will likely miss. If you fire 2 Gauss, both will likely hit, if you fire 2 Medium Lasers, both will likely hit.

Fix this, and boating will be less interesting. Not totally uninteresting. There is a benefit to having just one range bracket to worry about and knowing exactly your strength and weaknesses. There is a benefit of every weapon having the same flight characteristic. But it's minor compared to the above 2 elements.

[Shadowsword8]

Sybreed, on 05 March 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

This is just a reminder for people who want some weapon systems to be nerfed (notably, LRMs and SRMs)

These systems, when used by TT "standards", by this I mean 2XLRM15, 2XLRM20, 1XLRM20, 2xLRM10, 1xLRM10 (mediums anyone?), etc, are balanced.

It's when a mech can fire 50-60 LRMs or more at once that they become a problem.

It's when a mech can fire 18-30 SRMs at once that they are a problem.

So, don't blame the game imbalance on the weapons, blame it on your precious mech customization and the fact that PGI let you boat anything.

That doesn't make sense. "Boating" only means that you take multiples weapons of the same type. Nothing more. Simple multiplication can't create a problem if it doesn't already exist in the first place, it can only make it more obvious.

With your LRM example above, the real issue isn't that you can mount multiple launchers. It's that you can't mount more than one or two AMS. There's not enough mech customization. Or that AMS should intercept a set % of any incoming salvo, regardless of it's size. It would even make sense (more missiles incoming= higher chances each AMS round fired will hit one).

Quote

If you nerf weapon systems, you will hurt more those guys who want to use balanced builds than the boaters.

That doesn't make any sense, either. If you nerf weapon X by 20%, The mech using only weapon X get nerfed by 20%, while the mech using half weapon X and half weapon Y, get nerfed by 10%.

[Chou Senwan]

It would be interesting to see a mode where you fire one weapon every time you click the mouse button. So if you have 6 SRM6s, you need to go click-click-click-click-Crap he moved-hold on a second as a I reaim-click-click!

Or maybe, just to be simpler, there is a minimum of a 1 second delay between weapons in the same part of the mech firing.

[Mechteric]

What if SRMs, being say twice the size of LRMs, required 2 missile ports to fire out of the equivalent launcher. And then combine all fired out of the same area to fire from those same ports as they would currently when a single missile launcher has more than the number of ports. By that I mean the following:

* Catapult A1 has 15 missile ports on the left arm, and 15 missile ports on the right arm.

Currently:
1x LRM 15 in one arm fires in one volley
2x LRM 15 in one arm fires in one volley
1x LRM 20 in one arm fires in two volleys
1x SRM6 in one arm fires in one volley
3x SRM6 in one arm fires in one volley

Proposed:
1x LRM 15 in one arm fires in one volley
2x LRM 15 in one arm fires in two volleys
1x LRM 20 in one arm fires in two volleys
1x SRM6 in one arm fires in one volley (15 ports divided by two = maximum of 7 missiles per volley)
3x SRM6 in one arm fires in three volleys (7 missiles + 7 missiles + 4 missiles = 18 missiles)



Of course mech variants designed around SRMs would be able to allow for double the amount of LRMs, so for instance that SRM6 port on each torso of the HBK-4SP would be able to fire up to 12 LRMs per volley in each torso.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 06 March 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[Splinters]

Boating won't ever stop because we don't want to have 20 different weapon firing groups and remap our mice/keyboards accordingly. So at the end of the day 2-3 weapon groups is ideal and hence boating will be a popular option for most players. So if boating isn't going to be fixed easily, then another alternative may be better suited to the playing population.

I think the damage per weapon is actually pretty good. I think if I was to change anything to slow down boating would be to make the recharge timers a little bit longer so boating has more inherent weakness' to be countered. If SSRM's took twice as long to re-charge, many of the complaints about the Craven would be reduced significantly. Same with SRM's and LRM and ballistics.

It's the fast re-fire rate that allows dps to climb to such high rates that people feel that boating and systems are OP. If an Splatcat had to wait 6 seconds for a recharge, they won't be so eager to charge in knowing how long it takes to get off that second shot.

The UAC5 is a prime example of how the risk-reward system plays out. Jam the weapon for 4-5 seconds and a lot of people look to other systems that are faster recharge for higher dps in brawls. If the higher powered weapons were given longer recharges the behavior would change accordingly.

My honest suggestion is increase the Missles and Ballistics recharge by .25-.75 seconds so that boating is less effective. The biggest issue about using TT is that they are designed for 10 second rounds where you fire a weapon for one good shot, but with recharge times in 0.5-5 second range, we basically are doubling to quadrupling damage output with only double armor values.

I can appreciate the desire to make the game fast paced and fun, but it seems that the issue is that mechs go down so fast nowadays that it isn't fun. A little mistake will translate to a huge armor/internal loss.

I'm actually ok with the pace of things, but I can see that if people wanted slightly longer fights, then increasing recharge times would be a great way to slow down DPS so brawls will last longer.

-S

[Lykaon]

Boating is canon and as long as PGI includes canon mech designs we will see boats.

Boating is always indicative of the boated weapon's characteristics.

LRM boats= 1 LRM is meh...2 is good more is best.LRMs become effective weapon systems when boated and diminish significantly when used in smaller numbers.Other game features effect this such as AMS that will nullify small LRM launchers.

Conversley we have SRMs that are good singularly and better in larger volleys just because we get more good bang for the cost of inclusion.One SRM 6 is good 2 is twice as good so why not use 6 of them?


If a weapon did not have certain characteristics no one would bother to boat it.Hence the reason we do not see flamer boats.
If boating was the cause of over powered builds than boating anything would make it potent.This is clearly not the case a machinegun boat is still trash even if you put 4 MGs on a single mech.The MG lacks significant characteristics to make it worth using in any number.

[SniperCzar]

Did someone say LRM boat?

With the new flight path, it can single salvo anything but an Atlas or Stalker. Though fast lights have now returned to being mostly unable to hit with LRM volleys, to my personal annoyance, you can still erase them if they try and rush you.

[Victor Morson]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: BOATS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, PEOPLE WHO CRY ABOUT THEM ARE.

[Gremlich Johns]

LRMs should be like the MGM-51 Shilellagh missile system from the 1960-1980.

6 lbs of octol devastates a tank. Watch it shoot a target at about 1400m.

The 152mm HEAT round does a number as well - it melts a hole into armor. And the canister round - 10,000 flechettes can mess your day up.

Mechs have nothing like the fire power a modern tank has. Too bad.

[Tombstoner]

No its the reason behind the complaint. some are invalid because you shouldn't complain about boated LRM's if you not in cover or 6 PPC's on the mech your charging.

The issue at its core is the game design. how it was ported from TT to PC. it corrupted what little balance existed in TT massivly buffing some weapons and nerfing others. The developers are making tweaks to weapon stats, but its meaning less now with the new net code. even after a round of tweeks its still fundamentally broken.

Everything's dieing so fast now because all the weapon hits( no spread) are being registered. damage spiked over all builds. this requires a complete re-balancing of the game with current data.

Boating is a good tactic, but it should come with a game mechanic for balance. link firing 6 ppc's means you can't correctly target all 6 weapons at the same time. thus a cone of fire. all weapons will hit within the circle. if you fire one at a time you get pin point accuracy. linked lrm's should take longer to lock on. and ecm should increase lock on time. a targeting computer should reduce the cone of fire. but as it stands PGI has stated no plans for a targeting computer at all. this means to me that no fundamental game changes to targeting like COF are posable. that phase of project has been locked down. i also be-leave that's why ECM cant be changed.

i have stated before and i will again
as a TT player i am not the target audience.