152 replies to this topic

[Weatherman]

Aldon, on 07 March 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

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.

You can still dream up funky builds, you just can't design something outrageous that goes completely against canon. And these "arbitrary" rules that we are proposing do not "force" players to run standard builds; they force players to run more realistic and more balanced builds.

Also, about "pure" competition, last I checked the people who ran balanced builds or stock mechs weren't the ones going all pure competition. No, pure competition goes to the various leagues and such. I am talking teams with 8 D-DCs, or 6 splat cats and two D-DCs, or GaussCats with ECM backup of some kind. That sir is competition. That sir is intentionally breaking canon to simply have the most OP build you can have. That sir, is what I want to change.

[Speerit Ward]

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.

Sounds legit, at first. Don't blame the weapon, blame the one holding it.

But punishing boaters? Thats foolish. They're punishing themselves. Take a splatcat out at range on big maps, he has nothing the fight back with. 6PPC stalker? Overheat much? And that thing CANT be fast. Get in close where those PPC's cant get you.

There is a counter to EVERY build. The balanced ones are harder to counter. Boats have a hole wider than... PGI will allow me to describe.

[Karl Streiger]

to counter them easylie is a problem resulting in boring and fast battles.
Oh PPC stalker close flank kill....7:8
but damn there were two A1 to...7:6
good that we have sniper weapons now they are in the open...5:6....

you hardly see probing attacks. You hardly see battlemechs that change formation. You hardly see two opposing teams that fight each other for the full 15min - i mean fighting not waiting for the other team to move.
We pilot BattleMechs they are build for open battles. Boating Mechs are an anoyance because when they work at optimum they could wipe out a enemy team. if they can't work at optimum you better kill that guy via friendly annhilation. So that your team know fight from the beginning... 6 vs 8

[Xandralkus]

Aldon, on 07 March 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

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.

Is it really too much to ask for both? Pure competition and funky builds, MW4-style?

Are the devs so bad at math that they cannot calculate things such as DPS per ton, alpha per ton, damage per heat, and DPS per heat stable tonnage? Are they capable of abstracting with relative certainty the capability of a weapon to apply firepower effectively to a target, and then playtesting those weapons to make sure the theoretical mechanics correlate smoothly with the functional application of those mechanics? Are they capable of designing weapons that are both functionally unique and simultaneously possess broad, generalist roles? More importantly, are they capable of typing the weapon values into the servers ONLY after all of this calculation has been done?

Perhaps most importantly of all...why should we expect anything less of the devs? We should not have to sacrifice even the slightest bit of gameplay balance or player loadout freedom.

Edited by Xandralkus, 08 March 2013 - 12:16 AM.

[Yokaiko]

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.

I have a Cataphract that matches that output, I just have to be a bit closer. That phract is definately NOT a boat either.

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

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.

Why? The redesigning is one of my favorite parts of the game.

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

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

So a 5 and 7 ton LRM launchers are medium, but a 3 SRM6 is heavy? Ummmmmm no.

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

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.

Really if they would cut the falloff off say go max range for energy (excluding PPC) and ballistic like the current energy ranges a lot would get fixed.....that and nerfing convergence so that it doesn't work under say 100m

People derping into A1s, meh, I think I have died to an A1 maybe 3 times in the a last two weeks, including about 6 hours of 8 mans (A1s everywhere) plain and simply by weight to heat to damage ratios the SRM6 is boss dog, unless that changes you are ALWAYS going to see more SRM than LRM launchers.

....and everyone cries about LRM boats as well.

[Lorran]

why change the weaponary on the mechs at all ? you may flame as much as you want, but i grew up with the TT and we never changed the mechs weapons. the fun part was that you could not fire everything and needed to think about the heat buildup.

now in mwo its mostly rush the enmey or snipe him from afar.

i dont see the strategic aspect of the game anymore.

so why change weaponary at all, or just allow to switch 1-2 types of weapons in the given build and not more.

the fun was you looked what you got and then you placed them accordently.

[Weatherman]

Changing the weapons is something that needs to be considered and something the Devs do in the form of weapon balancing. Putting limits on hardpoints based on the mech's weight and original load out keep to the core idea that you cannot simply design a new mech from the ground up and go with it (and that IS what is happening right now). It also keeps a great deal of flexibility in customizing without falling into the ridiculous pit. Sure some people say that the hardpoints are themselves a limit on customization. I say that a GaussCat and GaussRaven puts that argument to shame. Seriously, taking into account the Dev's attempt to keep close to canon, how canon is it to replace a machine gun in a light mech WITH A GAUSS RIFLE!?

Simply put: It's not.

You want to see strategy in the game again? You want to see balanced teams in the game again? Then limit the slots associated with hardpoints. That way you HAVE to take heavies and assaults if you want some gauss or AC/20 goodness (or a hunchback, but remember that it weighs half as much as an Atlas, and the Atlas will win almost all the time). Lights will be best suited for scouting (plus the Cicada), mediums will be good at interdicting (plus the dragon as its a good fast responder) and responding quickly to enemies in your back yard. But the real firepower will come from heavies and assaults which is how it is supposed to.

That is balanced.

Edited by Weatherman, 08 March 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Ironspectre]

This thread seems more along the lines of the "fluffy/themed" players vs. the min-maxers. I see no problem with the weapons or boating. Boating has its drawbacks, biggest one being stamina in a match. LRM and SRM boats can't fire forever, they're restricted by needed to make the shots count. Energy boats have the heat issue. I saw someone suggest subcatagorizing hardpoints, heavy, medium and light...., the weapons themselves are already broken up as such by their cost in tons and weight. I like to play balanced range mechs, have long, mid and short range weapons. Boat are made for those who want instant gradification. It a PVP game which means most of the people playing aren't for the "fluff" that created the game, but competative people that must compete in some way.

I just like playing the game, win or lose. Yes it's fun to win, but those just want to win, there is usually a problem with them in some way.

So I say leave the weapons alone, leave the hypercompetative to their own devices and let's play MWO & have fun.

[Weatherman]

I am simply advocating a change designed to restore balance to the customization process thus allowing mechs to be more role oriented (which was a selling point the Dev's used mind you). By assigning slot sizes you restore that balance. That won't stop all boating as there are plenty of builds with hardpoints whose original weapon load out makes them well designed for boating, look at the Cataphract 4X or the lya Muromets, they are designed to be boats. So are all the Catapults except the C1. But it will allow role warfare to take center stage in the game, which drives players to play more balanced builds (I know there will always be some who will continue to try and break the game) and when community warfare comes out it means teams will have to look at filling the roles to best suit the drop.

[Xandralkus]

Characters in TT canon use one-off, hyper-custom builds - builds so radical, NOTHING in MWO even begins to approach them.

Why should we have any less customization? Every mech should be configurable enough to fulfill any role or any juxtaposition of roles that the player desires. The choice of Battlemech should not limit or constrain this in any way, shape, or form.

The only way to do this is to BALANCE weapon values.

Additionally, a few mechs (such as the Raven) have a dynamic model as weapons are added and subtracted. Stick a second laser on a Raven's arm, and you get a second gun. This system's functionality needs to be GREATLY extended.

Sticking a pair of Gauss Rifles on a Catapult should yield something that looks a pair of guns surrounded by something vaguely Catapult-esque. The conversion from machinegun to gauss rifle needs to be visually apparent AND affect the hitbox of the mech.

Sticking a Gauss Rifle on a Raven should yield a weird-looking version of a Hollander.

Edited by Xandralkus, 09 March 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[Sybreed]

Xandralkus, on 09 March 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Characters in TT canon use one-off, hyper-custom builds - builds so radical, NOTHING in MWO even begins to approach them.

Why should we have any less customization? Every mech should be configurable enough to fulfill any role or any juxtaposition of roles that the player desires. The choice of Battlemech should not limit or constrain this in any way, shape, or form.

The only way to do this is to BALANCE weapon values.

Additionally, a few mechs (such as the Raven) have a dynamic model as weapons are added and subtracted. Stick a second laser on a Raven's arm, and you get a second gun. This system's functionality needs to be GREATLY extended.

Sticking a pair of Gauss Rifles on a Catapult should yield something that looks a pair of guns surrounded by something vaguely Catapult-esque. The conversion from machinegun to gauss rifle needs to be visually apparent AND affect the hitbox of the mech.

Sticking a Gauss Rifle on a Raven should yield a weird-looking version of a Hollander.

So

PGI should just stop creating new mechs, cause with the current customization, we can create any mech we want, making the other dozens of mechs made by BT creators useless, worthless, without reasons to exist since we have a Raven with a ballistic slot.

Cool.

Wait... not really cool at all...

Edited by Sybreed, 09 March 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[Xandralkus]

Current customization mechanics suck, because they do not permit enough variance in battlemechs. The Mechwarrior 4 Mechlab was less restrictive than this.

Current weapon balance also sucks horribly.

A battlemech is not some glorious and sacred 'role platform', it is a pile of polygons.

If you want a Raven with a Hollander-style gun (and appropriate hitbox), you should be free to make one. Maybe you like Jenners instead. Put a Hollander-style gun on it. Or maybe you like PPC's? Heck, go put a few LRM's and SRM's on it, and turn it into an omni-range high-speed missile platform.

The fact is, in order for any of this to be balanced, each weapon instance on the battlemech needs to come with its own hitbox, and that hitbox alteration needs to be global regardless of the battlemech it is mounted on.

This means that stripping the AC-20 from a Hunchback should yield a completely normal-size torso. Adding PPC's to the arms should physically mount large polygon models and additional hitboxes to the arms. A double PPC Hunchback should have Awesome or K2-size energy weapons in its arms.

I'm really disappointed that PGI is rolling out an endless train of mechs and MC items instead of actually designing the damn game. They should stop making new mechs until they finish the job that we, the founders, hired them to do.

The ability to put Gauss on a Raven (with the hitbox alteration to preserve balance) does not diminish the value of either the Raven or Hollander - because someone will strip the Gauss off of a Hollander, in order to put Medium Lasers and SRM's on it. Players should be free to assign any weapon loadout to any polygon-pile, so long as the hitboxes are balanced.

The current system gets both weapon balance and customization horribly wrong, approaching a singularity of hideous game design.

Edited by Xandralkus, 09 March 2013 - 10:07 PM.

[kiltymonroe]

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

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.

You mean like these?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Yeoman

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Arctic_Wolf

[Adridos]

kiltymonroe, on 10 March 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

You mean like these?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Yeoman

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Arctic_Wolf

Both of these are pretty bad and for their BV, you're better off with a mech that doesn't just scratch the paint all over a mech. Boating is really more of a disadvantage in TT. Been there, done that and it only works when you get realy lucky.

Edited by Adridos, 10 March 2013 - 04:50 AM.

[kiltymonroe]

Adridos, on 10 March 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Both of these are pretty bad and for their BV, you're better off with a mech that doesn't just scratch the paint all over a mech. Boating is really more of a disadvantage in TT. Been there, done that and it only works when you get realy lucky.

There are a lot more missile boats than that.

Edited by kiltymonroe, 10 March 2013 - 05:08 AM.

[Adridos]

kiltymonroe, on 10 March 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

There are a lot more missile boats than that.

And all of them spread damage so much.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Adridos, on 10 March 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Both of these are pretty bad and for their BV, you're better off with a mech that doesn't just scratch the paint all over a mech. Boating is really more of a disadvantage in TT. Been there, done that and it only works when you get realy lucky.

Wow...just wow.

You actually saw a mech that could fire 68 SRMs at a single time, and move at 125kph (w/Speed Tweak) and you think it would 'just scratch the paint'. And that you would need to 'get lucky'?

Not only are you in denial about how boating is ingrained in Battletech Lore you ignore given examples of it and launch into a red herring about battlevalues.

[Tolkien]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 March 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

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.

Bingo!

The reason people boat is that all weapons systems require you to aim differently. Lasers (with state rewind) require no leading, PPCs require minimum leading, AC-20 requires a bigger lead and drop off compensation. This means that you can make hitting moving targets much easier by eliminating different weapons systems.

On the tabletop there was no difference between hitting with a medium laser, an AC20 or an SRM6, while here you have to aim at 3 different places to land them.

I hate to say it but don't hate the player, hate the game. Boating is a symptom of underlying mechanics that reward it. As long as they allow us to customize they will have to come up with some way of penalizing multiple instances of the same weapon, as using them is optimal for putting fire on target.

Edited by Tolkien, 10 March 2013 - 05:24 AM.

[Cyke]

Hi, was reading through this thread and just wanted to point out that a MW4 hardpoint system (limit to slot size of weapon that can shoot out of smaller hardpoints) sounds like a great idea.

Some limits make things worse because they take away options, but some actually make things more interesting because they open up options by taking away the clearly superior option. Applied correctly, the "hardpoint size" system looks like it will be the latter, and will likely improve the variety of builds we see.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Couldn't be more wrong. Things are either flat out overpowered or not, regardless of their quantity. SRMs are simply more weight efficient than other things, such as the LBX 10 which is very similar in functionality, yet far less valuable in actual usage. LRMs are either good or useless depending on whether enemies have ECMs or not. The quantity is entirely irrelevant. If I use a single SRM 6, it's not magically less valuable or OP than 6. It's just that it's less noticeable. You won't QQ about 1-2 SRMs, but you will QQ about 6, and it does not mean 1-2 is less OP. It's just less of a problem for you, thus you stupidly ignore it.

Missiles need to be balanced on their own while ECM needs a big firm nerfing. Then things would be evened out. Instead of OP(Enemy has no ECM) vs useless(Enemy has ECMs), it'd just be good vs slightly less good. But Piranha, like this thread's creator, has no concept of balance in a video game. They just seem to doodle every month like a kid with an art book and hope things work out. This crit buff to MGs/Flamers is another example of them doodling with an issue rather than outright fixing it in an obvious logical fashion. This is why my feedback is basically just me doodling as well. I lost every bit of faith of them hearing or listening quite some time ago.

Edited by Bluten, 12 March 2013 - 11:22 AM.