463 replies to this topic

[PropagandaWar]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 March 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Shouldnt the scout mechs HAVE TAG??
Oh yeah I forgot, the "scouts" in this game arent scouts at all but max damage anti assault/light mechs.

Lol. I Call them "The Force" Mechs. Hit me you will not. Lagshield is what I speak hrmmm.

[Tice Daurus]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 March 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Shouldnt the scout mechs HAVE TAG??
Oh yeah I forgot, the "scouts" in this game arent scouts at all but max damage anti assault/light mechs.

And you know what MB? That's FINE with me. It's all about freedom of choice. If people want to boat one weapon, F'n great. They want to run 4 PPC's on a Hunchback 4-P? Fan-frakin-tastic. They want a light mech than runs all medium pulse lasers and streak SRM-2s? Lovely. I could care less. It's what THEY want to do. If the entire team wants to run a A-1 with all SRM-6's? Give me more of it.

The moment we start nerfing one mech because it's too OP and everyone takes it, then where do we stop? And if people all start running splat cats, that's the day I'll sit back and boat PPC's on my Awesome or Stalker and one shot them crap out of them from 1000 meters away so I can get them early. Or LRM boat them to death.

It's all about freedom of choice here and knowing how to beat a particular build so you can deal with it.

USE.

YOUR.

BRAIN.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 15 March 2013 - 10:02 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

PropagandaWar, on 15 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Lol. I Call them "The Force" Mechs. Hit me you will not. Lagshield is what I speak hrmmm.

isnt it screwwy hitboxes on most of em now? The lagshield seems mostly fixed

[MaddMaxx]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 March 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

whatever happened to the idea of convergence taking time?

The local files can, and are being be modified, so that negates that desire. Folks are looking to get arm lock, won't that totally negate any type of convergence time?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 15 March 2013 - 10:05 AM.

[Vodrin Thales]

Alvor, on 15 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

My original post said it was not a boat "thing" but a balance issue.
Also the Jager does way less damage/less ammo/heavy AC/less armor than a 6Xsrm6s or any other cheesecat.

Wait... what? So a twin AC20 Jagermech with a similar top speed to a gausscat/SRMcat is that much less of a problem? You do realize it will have exactly the same armor values and carry about the same ammo as a twin AC20 K2 right?

[Mackman]

GODzillaGSPB, on 15 March 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Really, no way to not make it not a boat? And what if I combine LRMs and SRMs? SHOCKING!!!

But then you have THREE of one kind of weapon, and THREE of another kind of weapon! That's like... double boating! nooooooooob! You just have to point and click!

[Royalewithcheese]

PropagandaWar, on 15 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Lol. I Call them "The Force" Mechs. Hit me you will not. Lagshield is what I speak hrmmm.

For the netcode is my ally. And a powerful ally it is.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Tice Daurus, on 15 March 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

And you know what MB? That's FINE with me. It's all about freedom of choice. If people want to boat one weapon, F'n great. They want to run 4 PPC's on a Hunchback 4-P? Fan-frakin-tastic. They want a light mech than runs all medium pulse lasers and streak SRM-2s? Lovely. I could care less. It's what THEY want to do. If the entire team wants to run a A-1 with all SRM-6's? Give me more of it.

The moment we start nerfing one mech because it's too OP and everyone takes it, then where do we stop? And if people all start running splat cats, that's the day I'll sit back and boat PPC's on my Awesome or Stalker and one shot them crap out of them from 1000 meters away so I can get them early. Or LRM boat them to death.

It's all about freedom of choice here and knowing how to beat a particular build so you can deal with it.

USE.

YOUR.

BRAIN.

this. SO MUCH THIS.
This is why the devs should also turn a deaf ear to people who QQ about LRMs. But given the evidence of them caving time after time after time to those QQers and setting presidence to the idea that they will all but destroy a weapon system given enough QQ, it seems that its easier to run here and get them to break a weapon than it is for the CoD players to actually have to learn to use the ALREADY IN GAME counters available to them.

MaddMaxx, on 15 March 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

The local files can, and are being be modified, so that negates that desire. Folks are looking to get arm lock, won't that totally negate any type of convergence time?

I remember reading with the devs that they wanted the weapon convergence to take time, especially with the arms, but then they stopped talking about it as far as Ive seen. Then again I dont go outside here for my news (IE the podcast things as Id rather not sit through a podcast just to sift through it for useful bits that I can glean).

[Royalewithcheese]

Vodrin Thales, on 15 March 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Wait... what? So a twin AC20 Jagermech with a similar top speed to a gausscat/SRMcat is that much less of a problem? You do realize it will have exactly the same armor values and carry about the same ammo as a twin AC20 K2 right?

Haha yeah. 40 points of fast, heat-efficient precision damage anywhere within 270m is a dangerous thing.

[iusehaxs]

Monky, on 14 March 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Even in battletech there was a hero variant of the catapult with 6x SRM6, called the butterbee. Boating isn't going to go away - what needs to happen is a proper mix of; A: netcode and lag compensation fixes (we are currently getting there, still need missile and ballistic state rewind) B: bug fixing (even today bugs are being uncovered in how damage is working - once they get fixed things should improve) C: a proper balance of heat, damage, and overall efficiency per weapon that makes them useful individually without being overpowered in masses. This is tricky, but it is most certainly possible. Keep in mind, simply due to the 'ease of use' factor of having all one type of weapon, you are always going to see boats, even if they are strictly speaking, made combat ineffective. A boat being defined as revolving around using 1 weapon type as primary damage source (2x AC20, 6x SRM, 6x PPC, what have you).

give this man his internets!

+1 kind sir boating will and always has been part of the battle tech universe it is up to us players to counter what out fellow mechwarrior uses during combat.

btw my srm boat is indeed named butterbee and my atlas is samsonov

[Tickdoff Tank]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 March 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

this. SO MUCH THIS.
This is why the devs should also turn a deaf ear to people who QQ about LRMs. But given the evidence of them caving time after time after time to those QQers and setting presidence to the idea that they will all but destroy a weapon system given enough QQ, it seems that its easier to run here and get them to break a weapon than it is for the CoD players to actually have to learn to use the ALREADY IN GAME counters available to them.



I remember reading with the devs that they wanted the weapon convergence to take time, especially with the arms, but then they stopped talking about it as far as Ive seen. Then again I dont go outside here for my news (IE the podcast things as Id rather not sit through a podcast just to sift through it for useful bits that I can glean).

I agree that the QQ should be ignored. But occasionally there is an issue that needs to be addressed. The splash damage bug is a case in point. Not every complaint is a QQ, but some people (and I am not looking at anyone specific here, especially not MB who I have a decent amount of respect for) see any complaint as a QQ inspired by their lack of skill or understanding.

[Gaan Cathal]

MaddMaxx, on 15 March 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Folks are looking to get arm lock, won't that totally negate any type of convergence time?

What? No, it should just mean that your arm reticule and torso reticule are hooked. The convergence system is borked beyond all belief anyway at the moment, they need a converge-to-target setup already.

[Tice Daurus]

I'm going to settle this for all...

This is not a boating issue or a balance issue.

Some houses specifically built entire lances or companies with one mech with the commander of that lance or company to have a stronger mech. House Kurita would create lances of Panthers and the commander might have something more stronger like say a Pheonix Hawk or Shadow Hawk to lead them. Stiener might have made lances of Awesomes with an Atlas to lead them.

Boating or having multiples of one mech isn't a bad thing. It's all about freedom of choice.

Deal with it.

Now I will address one thing recently brought up. If say one weapon particular that is being used like say SRM-6's and the weapon convergence or damage issue is too strong, then the problem isn't BOATING. The problem is then a WEAPON issue or something of that nature and then THAT needs to be addressed. However this thread was originally created to say that the problem is boating and it isn't.

From now on, we as the forum population need to be more vigilant to start knocking down poorly thought out threads and force the mods to start locking this crap ASAP.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 15 March 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Alvor, on 15 March 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

Your right and not. For canon stock builds it should be the same amount and type of hard points or just stock mechs. And yes one could free design mechs in canon as well. I miss making my free build mechs as I always hated the stock builds. But for stock mechs the options should be somewhat limited.

And there was much discussion of that in CB. The Stock designs does not necessarily make the best use of ALL the available Mech space and as such would have left the "customization" portion woefully weak. Given that the DEV adjusted a few designs to allow a more fluid package.

The Trials are Stock and Canon and the word is, they ALL "suck". Some of the configs that when modified, based on even the allowed changes to Canon designs, still "suck".

Apparently, there will always be some "suck" in any Mech design protocol. That is just how things is. Personally, I think that so far the designs have over-all been pretty good and the mix of Mechs seen on the battlefield shows that as a truth.

There are still some favorites, but that is simply human nature. Some will drive what other thinks is the "suck". Each to their own right?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 15 March 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Just want to point out that the "Butterbee" actually has 4 SRM6s, not 6. But it is still a canon "boat".

• Catapult CPLT-C1 Jenny "Butterbee" - The personal ride of MechWarrior Jenny Templeton, this variant of the Catapult replaces the standard arm-mounted LRM-15s with a quartet of SRM-6 missile launchers, two in each arm.^[16] BV (2.0) = 1,242^[17]

(emphasis mine)

[PropagandaWar]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 March 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

isnt it screwwy hitboxes on most of em now? The lagshield seems mostly fixed

Yeah its good to laser boom them. But man My 2x Srms on my hunchy dont register on over half the mechs in most games and my Pings decent. My buddy was watching as my SRMS ghosted through an Awesome the other day literally. Second shot hit though. Cant wait for the state rewind on the remaining weapons.

[KuruptU4Fun]

3rdworld, on 15 March 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Was your post i responded to originally sarcasm?

No, a lot of people here simply find the learning curve of this game to be too high, then blame their inability to overcome it with simple solutions like joining a team would help their situation. They gain (at least) support and wisdom.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Gaan Cathal, on 15 March 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

What? No, it should just mean that your arm reticule and torso reticule are hooked. The convergence system is borked beyond all belief anyway at the moment, they need a converge-to-target setup already.

Convergence to targeted mech has it's own issues as well though. It may be that it would work better, but there are still many situations where converence to target will cause problems. I do not always have my target "targeted" because I may be holding lock on a mech for LRM fire while shooting the Atlas that is directly in front of me. What about an ECM mech? convergence to target could be a buff to ECM by making it harder for a direct fire weapon to hit a mech under ECM because I can't target it.

I truly do not have an answer to the convergence problems, and they ARE problems. I just do not think that there is an "easy" fix to them.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Tickdoff Tank, on 15 March 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

I agree that the QQ should be ignored. But occasionally there is an issue that needs to be addressed. The splash damage bug is a case in point. Not every complaint is a QQ, but some people (and I am not looking at anyone specific here, especially not MB who I have a decent amount of respect for) see any complaint as a QQ inspired by their lack of skill or understanding.

Bug finding is different from QQ though. Bug finding is why we're HERE in the Beta.
QQ is "LURMs r OP nurf them!!"

[MaddMaxx]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 15 March 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

isnt it screwwy hitboxes on most of em now? The lagshield seems mostly fixed

Was that and now we know it is the Missile they carry. The "force" pilots are going to get moocho unhappy when their "splash" force is removed or toned back to reality levels.