152 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Sybreed, on 07 March 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

Well, PGI can now create the Hollander and bring more mechs to the table with very different roles and won't overlap over other mechs...

That is true, but on the other hand they have to say good by to the "skill tree" as it is working actually.

And i think...why not. Its nonsense to pilot three times the same chassis with hardly any difference.
Would give room for some great mechs when the "limitation" - we need three variants - is removed.


I'm with you on the Crusade to remove noobisch boating player from the game.

Stock Mechs are great... back in CB my corps were running on several battles only stock mechs.
We had 6 DRG-1N Dragons. We had 7 K2. The only advantage was communication.
I ran the Stock 1N too and it is a great mech when used right.
I run a Flame in Grand Dragon 5 K config while lacking fire power it is still a great mech...

When stock mechs don't work for you - you should ask your self if it is the problem of the mech or the problem of you lacking skill.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 March 2013 - 05:39 AM.

[Weatherman]

sarkun, on 07 March 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

The mw4 hardpoint system could work, if we got a ready game, released with all the content - not with what we have now - slow trickle of new mechs.

I could see implementing it when we have lots of different mechs, but right now, it would MASSIVELY limit the available builds. And there would be a huge uproar if all of peoples mechs were suddenly nerfed, so it will probably never happen in the future too.



At least now you can make a Hollander by modifying a Raven. If we move to a mw4 hardpoint system, you will still have no Hollander, and no means of making one. How is that better?

You absolutely can have a Hollander. In 4 years when it comes out. Trying to break the timeline because the game, by keeping to a canon timeline, doesn't offer you equipment that isn't available yet is counter to the idea that the Devs put forth about how this is supposed to be an unfolding story in the canon BT universe that we all get to play in. I understand people are fond of mechs designed in the later years. I LOVE the Rotary AC/5 and loved running a Fafnir with 4 of them. But none of that is available in the timeline yet and I much prefer it that way. By sticking to the canon timeline the Devs help foster this story. If they go too far towards FPS then it stops being a story we are all playing in and becomes CoD with mechs instead of infantry. I don't like that and I don't want to see it happen. So if we apply limitations to customization, reasonable limitations not arbitrary, then we help promote the game's story and the immersion so many of us want.

Edited by Weatherman, 07 March 2013 - 06:57 AM.

[Yokaiko]

Boats aren't a problem, boats only work (the ones everyone ******* about) because of most of the maps.

LRM boats are as cannon as they come, getting LRM'd into the floor is just part of the battletech experience. Going back to the table top/

[Karl Streiger]

battletech has no real boats simple because boating in tt didn't work.

Yeoman, Salamander Viking and Arctic Wolf maybe Warhawk and Supernova are only exeptions.

[Zyllos]

Boats are not an issue. The issue is weapon convergence. 100%, plain and simple.

The only reason boats work is because when you fire all your weapons, they all hit a single point.

[Corvus Antaka]

Zyllos, on 07 March 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Boats are not an issue. The issue is weapon convergence. 100%, plain and simple.

The only reason boats work is because when you fire all your weapons, they all hit a single point.

If this where true, the splatcat would indeed be the least OP of all the boats since it has the worst convergence and aiming.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 07 March 2013 - 09:08 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 07 March 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

If this where true, the splatcat would indeed be the least OP of all the boats since it has the worst convergence and aiming.

Keep in mind that what people complain about it doing is getting up to point-blank range and unloading. At that distance, the cone is narrow enough that much of the blast will land on the same section - much like converging weapons.

[Weatherman]

Yokaiko, on 07 March 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Boats aren't a problem, boats only work (the ones everyone ******* about) because of most of the maps.

LRM boats are as cannon as they come, getting LRM'd into the floor is just part of the battletech experience. Going back to the table top/

I agree with your first point. The small brawler maps we have right now favor short range weaponry like SRMs (that doesn't mean you can't be effective with long range weapons, only that there are few drawbacks to the short range systems). With large maps like alpine and the upcoming desert map, you remove a great deal of strength from the close range boats like the splatcat. In turn, it makes boating LRM's more appealing since you have nice long range, open field environments to rain on your enemies. So part of fixing this problem is accepting that on some maps there will be some mech designs that will have an advantage.

To your second point, the boats you are citing in TT usually have defined roles. The LRM boats, except the Yeoman, all have some secondary weaponry to help defend themselves (the Yeoman doesn't really need that since, as a Clan mech, its LRMs have no minimum range). The Warhawk, Supernova, and Nova (you forgot what begat the Supernova) are closer to what we call boats (though the Warhawk does have an LRM-10 for something to fire while it cools down). The Nova and Supernova strike me as examples of somebody in the design staff throwing a custom boat model into the game, though they are both Clan mechs as well, which can fit to some extent as the clans were all about the one vs one dueling so these designs are really not that outrageous for them. IS mechs were often designed to work together and have the flexibility to respond to variable threats (except those designed for fire support like the Catapult).

And lastly, everyone remember that since this is a game that is not populated solely by BT fans, there will be people who want to argue from a more FPS point of view, to whom boating is just another way of trying to win with math. Many of those who like the idea of playing in a persistent BT universe would rather see people play with a more canon feel, something which is simply not going to happen as the FPS crowd has as much right to play this game as we do. The best we can do is air our grievances and hope there are enough of us to get the Dev's attention. I know that the Dev's have talked about wanting to stay close to canon and I think if they notice us we might stand a good chance at seeing some of these changes implemented.

[Aldon]

I respectfully totally disagree with any attempt to "deal with" boating or some arbitrary rules to force people to run more "standard" builds. Half of the fun in mechwarrior has always been dreaming up new funky builds.

If you want a "pure" competition at all times then you need to play Halo or COD.

[MustrumRidcully]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 07 March 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

If this where true, the splatcat would indeed be the least OP of all the boats since it has the worst convergence and aiming.

Actually, convergence helps them, too. Think about it - imagine the SRMs from each arm would actually fly a straight path. Now if you get close to a target, there is a real risk that the target is not in one of your arm's missile flight path. That means you would need to fire the salvos from each arm separately.

[Postumus]

Banditman, on 06 March 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

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.

I asked about this (boating heat penalties) specifically in one of the Q&A threads, because I agree with the premise of this thread - that boating, not the boated weapons, are the problem. Two SRMs as part of a balanced loadout are not an issue, and they aren't overpowered. The damage that SRM's do per missile is balanced around the average, "normal" number of SRM pods you would see in a stock mech, 1-3. You could even make a case for 4 SRMs on a build not being completely over the top. Finally, it isn't even the fact that 5 and 6 SRM6 boats can one and two-shot most mechs that makes them OP - it is the fact that there is no other weapon configuration that can do this without shutting down immediately, or that even comes close to the level of damage output that they are putting out in a volley. Most good splatcat builds aren't even "hot", they can fire off several alphas in a row. That is, in a word, ridiculous.

I'm ok with people theoretically being able to put 6xSRM6's on their mech, just like I'm cool with 6xPPC builds, but what im not ok with is these builds not only being just as viable in terms of heat, ammunition, armor and speed as other, balanced builds, but being in fact the optimal build for their role. Extreme builds (yes, the splatcat is extreme) should fall on the outside of the viability bell curve. There are a few ways to make this happen, the simplest of which is to balance boating with heat penalties specific to weapon name, type, and mech. Some mechs would need the penalties, some wouldn't. Some weapons would need them, some wouldn't. For some weapons, it would make sense for a heat penalty to kick in after 2 or 3 of the same weapon (Im thinking SRMs, maybe PPCs). For others, 4 or 5(medium lasers, maybe). Some canon variants should be exempt from boating restrictions, but the only example in game that comes to mind is the HBK-4P.

Tiered hardpoints (large, medium, small) would also help in many cases, but unlike heat penalties for boating the devs have never shown interest in this.

Edited by Postumus, 07 March 2013 - 01:24 PM.

[Stickjock]

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.

Respectfully will disagree with you on your take for LRM's... Not having been able to play too much lately I found myself dropping with a friend a few days ago... the best runs I had where in my Founders Cat (2xLRM15's, 4xML's)... consistantly rolled out the damage, hitting targets left and right. Don't run TAG on mine but didn't seem to matter. Ran afoul of a few ECM obscured targets, but with team work it seem'd they weren't obscured long and the pain was raining on them again...

Have my 6xSSRM2 Cat that I'm actually thinking about swapping over to a mix of LRM/SRM's instead (never really like the 6xSSRM2's...)... most likely 4 smaller LRM's with 2xSRM's as backup if needed...

[Featherwood]

The real reason behind boating, as I see it, is current hardpoint system (HPS). It allows quite a laxity in customization, leading to illogical builds and different 'boats' are particular example of it. MW4 style hardpoint system for MWO! Vote for hardpoint system rewamp, let developers know our opinion)) Another downside of current HPS: it makes a task of visual representation of Mech custom configuration more complicated (too many altered 3d models and so on).

[Crocjaw]

LRM's are the problem. I dont mind any boat but that. You cant see it you cant fight it and you die trying to get to it. You have to find a hole and wait till they get around to you so you can at least get a shot off.

[Rumrunner2]

Weapons are not the problem, boating is problem.

2PPC in a Mech is fine, make them weaker and they are useless.
But 6PPC and u have a monster able to oneshoot smaller mechs.

The unlimited options to change light weapons to heavey weapons is the problem, i.e. changing MG to Ak20.
MWO needs a better hardpointsystem, a system what allows to modifie ur Mech but not to redesign it completely.

My proposal:
All weapons are grouped into light, medium and heavey weapons. Example for Missiles and energy:
-light: LRM5, SRM2, Narc :: Light Laser, LightPulseLaser, TAG
-medium: LRM10, LRM15, SRM4, Streak2 :: MediumLaser, MediumPulseLaser
-heavey: LRM20, SRM6 :: LargeLaser, LargePulseLaser, PPC, ERPPC, ERLargeLaser

Mechs hardpoint is determined by the weapon originally installed:
there was SRM6 in? HeaveyMissile Hardpopint
there was LRM 5 in? LightMissileHardpoint
Weapons can only changed with weapons of same or lower group.
A few hardpoints may be rated one tier higher than the installed weapon, if necessary for balance.

I know its some work to redesign the existing mechs, but its worth. This system allows a very fine tuning of each mech.

[Corvus Antaka]

Rumrunner2, on 07 March 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Weapons are not the problem, boating is problem.

2PPC in a Mech is fine, make them weaker and they are useless.
But 6PPC and u have a monster able to oneshoot smaller mechs.

The unlimited options to change light weapons to heavey weapons is the problem, i.e. changing MG to Ak20.
MWO needs a better hardpointsystem, a system what allows to modifie ur Mech but not to redesign it completely.

My proposal:
All weapons are grouped into light, medium and heavey weapons. Example for Missiles and energy:
-light: LRM5, SRM2, Narc :: Light Laser, LightPulseLaser, TAG
-medium: LRM10, LRM15, SRM4, Streak2 :: MediumLaser, MediumPulseLaser
-heavey: LRM20, SRM6 :: LargeLaser, LargePulseLaser, PPC, ERPPC, ERLargeLaser

Mechs hardpoint is determined by the weapon originally installed:
there was SRM6 in? HeaveyMissile Hardpopint
there was LRM 5 in? LightMissileHardpoint
Weapons can only changed with weapons of same or lower group.
A few hardpoints may be rated one tier higher than the installed weapon, if necessary for balance.

I know its some work to redesign the existing mechs, but its worth. This system allows a very fine tuning of each mech.

Not just in the interests of game balance, but in income for PGI too. As it is now, once you find the optimal mech & loadout for that mech, that mech becomes the best at that job.

ie the ac 20 hunchback vs the AC 20 trebuchet which lacks the hunch that everyone loves shooting.

if only the hunchback can mount the ac20, thats the mech for that job, and because it has the room to fit the ac 20. Same with the Hollander. Same issue with the dual gauss K2 "mr, where are yur machine guns?"

A mech4 style hardpoint system would still allow for diverse builds (like the 2 large laser founders hunchback with 3 machine guns, while at the same time insure that every mech is unique and viable just a little bit more.

if the current hardpoints where simply changed so that an AC 2 needs 1 ballistic slot, a 10 needs 2 slots and a 20 needs 3, or a medium laser 1 slot, a large 2 slots, we might actually see more variety in builds while curbing the boating.

However on the flip side this type of slot system could let us boat 12 medium lasers, and that could be a problem too. back to the heat problem

I really like the current mechlab and its blend of mech3/mech4, but I do dislike how stuff like the hunchies hunch is just a liability instead of something that means something.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

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.

Boating is a TT thing too, it isn't some exploit that we have happened to run across.

Exhibit A: The Arctic Wolf
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Arctic_Wolf

Our 6xSRM6 Catapults have nothing on this beast. If you thought the A1 was scary...

[Elyam]

The problem is not mech customization, it's the fact that MWO allows multiple weapons to fire at the same time in a game that also utilizes near-100%-accurate crosshair targeting. BT is a reduced-technology universe, and the TT version of the game uses individual dice rolls for to-hit and then for location resolution. Migrating this to an FPS-like environment without finding ways to properly reflect the targeting inaccuracies of that reduced-tech 'reality' will result in issues like the 'boating' complaint. I won't suggest that MWO do a pure port of TT, but it would have been more realistic to BT if we could only fire one weapon a a time (though simultaneous fire of different trajectory types, such as allowing 1 PPC to fire on the same trigger as an LRM15, wouldn't cause any problems). I realize this will never be done in MWO due to the rabid dedication CG players have to the grouped fire and alpha-strike abilities, but it would solve alot of problems and be much closer to the way BT is designed.

Edited by Elyam, 07 March 2013 - 04:18 PM.

[Clasbyte]

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?

Maybe because a lot of the player base comes from the tabletop and played it kinda competitive. So that means some sort of campaign, logistic issues like not enough ammo or no repair between the fights. So baseline if ya done that with an "boat" you had been in trouble and i guess that is why a lot are so upset that this is mw3 all over again.

[Critical Fumble]

Stickjock, on 07 March 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Respectfully will disagree with you on your take for LRM's... Not having been able to play too much lately I found myself dropping with a friend a few days ago... the best runs I had where in my Founders Cat (2xLRM15's, 4xML's)... consistantly rolled out the damage, hitting targets left and right. Don't run TAG on mine but didn't seem to matter. Ran afoul of a few ECM obscured targets, but with team work it seem'd they weren't obscured long and the pain was raining on them again...

Have my 6xSSRM2 Cat that I'm actually thinking about swapping over to a mix of LRM/SRM's instead (never really like the 6xSSRM2's...)... most likely 4 smaller LRM's with 2xSRM's as backup if needed...

I'm going to get around to trying a LRM Treb sooner or later, but I have no intention of using it without TAG.

I'd rather not count on the other team being less coordinated and bored of ECM mechs