Jump to content

Game Needs To Address Boating.


463 replies to this topic

#441 focuspark

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ardent
  • The Ardent
  • 3,180 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:27 PM

View PostM4rtyr, on 18 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:



Uhh, the mechlab doesn't break the balance. Weapons and equipment not being balanced breaks the balance. And the thing is the minmaxers, as always, take the most powerful weapons and equipment on the chasis' that can have them.

The chasis and concept of boating is not what is broken.

Then we're in agreement.

#442 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:44 PM

It appears I broke the forum engine with this one as it started giving me errors when I tried to quote more people than I have in this part of the post

PART 1:

View PostOmni 13, on 15 March 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:


(and depending on the situation yes I would just send riflemen they can generally handle any situation given proper equipment)


Two things about that Statement:
1- "Depending on the situation" That alone means there are times when they are inappropriate or ineffective. You're basically supporting our argument with that one.

2- Riflemen with the proper equipment and training means they are not just riflemen anymore, they are specialized in something or another. Basically what you are saying is that you would use tactics and have some boats (specialists with proper equipment) to overcome obstacles.

Even if you did not mean that the riflemen are boating, you are still relying on them to be adaptable and fulfill different roles to overcome their opponents.

We've been saying that what you need is tactics and not be stupid, and have a multi-role team. Multi role in the infantry is a rifleman as they generally are equipped with rifles for medium to long range combat, pistols for close range combat and last ditch efforts, and knives for melee combat. Send a bunch of them in, and have each one use only one type of weapon to support the team, and you have boats. You need the guy with the heavy rifle to give support and suppression fire. You need the speedy one with the knife and pistol to close in and kill in close quarters combat situations while being supported by a couple of grenades from his buddies.

Oh yeah. I don't see boating anywhere in that team at all.

Look, in real life combat situations (and this game is trying to be a good simulation of that) you will always have boats. You will always have specialists. Your soldiers are not identical clones of each other. You have some that are faster runners than other, or sharper shooters, or better demolitionists, all with different skills. You might call them all riflemen, but they are not all experts with the rifle. They're good with it, but they specialize in other things. Some will specialize in that rifle of theirs. Others will pick the knife instead.

That is role combat. Each role is effective in one way or another. If you have a demolition guy who brings nothing to the fight but boxes of TNT he will get exploded when the first stray, or well aimed, bullet hits and ignites that stuff. No, he should've brought a gun with him or a carbine, and less TNT, so he can be on the front line. Otherwise, he stays in the back, does nothing, hides, and waits for the rest of the team to kill everything and clear a path for him.

Boating is basically what that demo guy did. You just focus on doing one thing and one thing only. One type of weapon, and you get destroyed by anyone in your blind spot, be that ECM for streaks and LRMs (or within 180 meters for LRMs) or cover for ALL weapons, or speed to avoid PPCs and lasers.

View PostImperial X, on 15 March 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:


My opinion of people who defend boating:

They are incapable of operating a mech a multiple ranges and will defend boating with the dumbest reasons I have ever heard.


Well, how do you explain me then? I don't boat. I have never boated, not even in the old MW games.

I agree that boating might not require skill, or a lot of it. However, boating doesn't need to be defended. It is a logical step for anyone with the vaguest military intelligence in them.

The real problem is all the people out there that want to play an easy giant robot copy of any of the CoD games. "Oh that's harrrrrdddd, it requires me to do more than just run forward and press the trigger button" This game is based around tactics, and if you're not using them, well.... You might want to reconsider that.

(The "You" here is not aimed at you personally, but at the players who play without thinking.)

View PostHelwintr, on 15 March 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:


but here's the kicker. but after the clans' hit, mechs started to move towards more specialized roles and were meant to function as part of a lance. so having specialized mechs(boats) doesn't break canon. specialized mechs all have weaknesses, and thusly need to rely on the rest of the team to make up for that.


That's how any military is conducted, small scale or large scale. There is never one unit that does it all. That's just a waste of resources, a jack of all trades is a master of none.

I know someone out there is going to bring up some example of a squad that was just 4 guys with AR-15s. You know what, sure. I'll take it. Tell me though, were they the ONLY ONES out there in that fight? No, they are deployed as part of a larger group that is supporting another larger group and the two groups are different. Even when you have an all out infantry battle where it's one side's infantry against the other side's infantry, and they are all armed with the same identical weapon, they are being backed up by armor, artillery, air force, recon and even mines for crying out loud.



View PostSheraf, on 15 March 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:



Even if missiles are bug, I would rather fight lrm boat and streak cat than ECM. That thing is beyond broken.


I don't think ECM is broken, it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. If you got into a fight relying on highly advanced digital equipment and neglect to calculate the fact that your enemy will do so as well and possibly try to find a way to disable your equipment you are not really employing tactical thought.

The bubble might be too big but that's what jamming equipment does in real life. It either masks (which means it reduces the radar's perception of what it is scanning), or all out blinds. It is a powerful tool, that is also why not all machines can be equipped with it. Every team should always have at least one or two mechs with it, and that's from a common sense perspective. Even in real life, you don't want to deploy without both ECM and ECCM (it's the counter to ECM). Hell I've even seen ECCCM (that stands for Electronic Counter Counter Counter Measures) Yeah.



View PostMaddMaxx, on 15 March 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:



If the word on the street is true, LRM's are not among the bugged Missile groups. LRM's did not receive, more have ever had Splash damage. The new "tighter" flight path just packs a better area punch now.

If, less spread is a "Bug", then why did they tighten the grouping from the old spread at all? They did so because the old flight paths were bugged. file:///C:/Users/Zaid/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif


LRMs are not the buggy ones. I believe SRMs are the buggy ones. Since they are the ones that are supposed to deal 2.5 + splash.



View PostWaverider, on 15 March 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:


I have no problem with boats. And I never understood this "fear" for them. If my team find one we just call for focus fire on the ******* and pronto, "boat problem" solved.


Thank you, it brightened my night just reading that.

View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 15 March 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:



Do we like this concept?



Now that's a good question. The answer is in most cases, iffy, some will say no, others will say yes. End of the day, that is only a problem for people who only play alone, if you are dropping with friends, you are usually building around that. Which means you won't see much boating with organized groups. When you drop alone and have as much as 15 people who are doing the same, you will start to have more problems. There is a reason we have a lot of people saying that boating isn't a problem, and a lot saying that it is.

In most cases the ones that say it is [a problem] are usually talking about unorganized games, where your lances are just whatever the hell the system happened to match up at the time. While those saying it isn't a problem (I am not counting the ones that just cite canon or say it's valid cuz it's allowed in the game) are mentioning tactics and knowledge of terrain and these boat builds. Which usually means organized deployment with at least one lance being pre-made.

those two worlds are very different. That is where a good chunk of the schism is happening. Organized teams that deploy properly will almost never have a problem dealing with a team that has boats. Especially when you actually assign tactics-savvy person as your leader.


View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 15 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:



Is it healthy for the game long-term to have splatcats and ppc stalkers and 3x LRM 15's atlases with ECM?



Why not? Those are easy pickings. Splat cats will go up to 65 KPH maybe more with a speed tweak and an XL engine(bad mistake as it makes the critical area you need to hit to kill it fast even bigger than it already is.)

Any heavy/medium/light mech can not only match that but surpass it, and a splat cat is only good at 100 meters, if you let him get that close to you, you deserve to get blasted. Now if you were turning a corner and he was there, well, that's just bad luck.

PPC stalkers are good for one or two alphas, then they over heat for a long *** time. All you need is a commando 2D without any ECM if you want and he'll shred a PPC stalker without receiving damage most of the time. I know because I've done it multiple times with my COM-2D and my COM-3A. Also medium and light mechs can out maneuver them easily. Hell I've seen an atlas get behind a PPC stalker and stay in his blind spot until he dropped it.

LRM Atlasses with ECM are gonna sit their heavy behinds far from the fight, meaning their team has 100 tons less of tanking power, and if you have ECM they are screwed. Also cover helps, and you do to it the same thing you do to a stalker. Send someone to hit it from behind. If you have a light that has lost both arms and still has ECM on it, have him sit behind the Atlas and counter his ECM. Not only is he being spotted now for all of you, but he has no ECM to hide behind.

Really, I have never met a boat that can't be destroyed in an easy and simple way.


View PostZyllos, on 15 March 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:


Boats on mechs that where not meant to be boats is the symptom of bad weapon convergence.

If a mech has a large number of any number of hardpoints, then players will attempt to use those hardpoints to use all the same weaponry if they all hit the same location.

If all those weapons did not hit the same location, I am sure that many of those players would stop using many different weapons of the same type/range because then individual locations/weapons that perform well would be more important than finding weapons which has the best DPS/HPS.

This is also why anytime a boat gets released into the game, it is immediately brought to the top of the meta game ladder. This is also why the competative community boats weapons, it's easier to localized all your damage when you have the same weapons all targeting a single point.

Weapon convergence is MWO's public enemy number one right now.


Some people have complained about weapon convergence, and you know what. It doesn't make sense not to have it. All weapon systems try to focus fire in real life and in video games. That's efficient and effective, it drops an enemy dead in seconds. It makes sense to have convergence.

The mechs that have arms can have the best convergence out of any other mech design. Even the ones with so called "ears" can have convergence. One possible thing to do for mechs with ears is give them a minimum range under which weapons cannot converge. Like say 90 meters, beyond that point the hydraulics of the ears don't allow them to tilt enough to get the convergence needed. Mechs with arms have more flexibility in that regard, however their arms are bigger targets to hit.

Or maybe something about having the torso weapons not converge at all and just go straight. Although that will punish some chasis types.

Maybe the devs can find something to work with in there. That was just an example. That's all.


View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 15 March 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:



"Designed to boat".

What does that mean? As I said, this game throws things out the window with mech design because it allows for unlimited customization.


It means that these models have a higher propensity to become boats. They are built to field multiples of the same weapon type. That's what they were originally designed for.

Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but this game does not have unlimited design options. The hard point system is very limiting. Unlimited design is what will happen with Omnimechs show up. That's when things go crazy.

Also, if a boat isn't over heating it means it has lots of heat sinks, possibly Double Heat sinks. That means that it has tissue paper for armor. That's not exactly a good design for front line combat now is it?

Edited by IraqiWalker, 18 March 2013 - 10:46 PM.


#443 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:16 PM

PART 2:

View PostSilentium, on 15 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

The underlying point here is valid to a degree I think, but I hate the idea of nerfing chassis. Clearly, some of the variant hardpoint layouts are optimal given the current map rotation and weapon damage levels. That said, I don't think it is really that much of an advantage considering the weaknesses that come with boating. I just don't see how any of the boats are insurmountably awesome. They are one trick ponies.


Tell that to the endless ocean of cry babies who can't seem to think of how to deal with them. There's a reason boats are the exception and you might think they are common, when if fact you probably run into 3 of them over the course of 7 matches, but if you lost to that one SRM boat then boats are a problem.

If you are not using tactics then don't blame anyone other than yourself for your loss.


View PostNicholas Carlyle, on 15 March 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:


The Raven is a complete anomaly in this game caused by two completed ****** up mechanics.

Honestly I'd be happy if PGI just deleted the whole Raven line of mechs at this point.

Dude the raven here is weaker than the ravens in the other MW games. It's an efficient light hunter and can even brawl with the medium classes some times, but all in all it is not that devastating and overwhelming force on the field. Sure the 3L is possibly the most viable variant right now because of its set up but it's not over powered.

Also, ECM is not broken, that's how ECM works in real life. Look it up.

THIS HAS TAKEN OVER AN HOUR OF MY TIME. and by then 14 pages had erupted.

#444 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:24 PM

Quote

12? We already have this situation but its alot -less- then 12. Or havn't you read the 'competitively viable chasis/varient' thread?


Correct. Currently we have 1 light, 2 medium, 2 heavy, and 1 assault builds that are considered 'competitively viable'. thats 6 different builds. Pretty sad...

#445 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:08 AM

Quote

Also, if a boat isn't over heating it means it has lots of heat sinks, possibly Double Heat sinks. That means that it has tissue paper for armor. That's not exactly a good design for front line combat now is it?

You take a reasonable amount of heat sinks for a reasonable amount of time being able to fire your weapons. Your bonus as boat is - you have no weapons you don'T intend of firing, that means at every point in time, 100 % of your mech's resources are devoted to its primary job. Now better make sure you're also 100 % of the time in the position to execute your primary job.

#446 Sheraf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 1,088 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:24 AM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 18 March 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

PART 2:

Dude the raven here is weaker than the ravens in the other MW games. It's an efficient light hunter and can even brawl with the medium classes some times, but all in all it is not that devastating and overwhelming force on the field. Sure the 3L is possibly the most viable variant right now because of its set up but it's not over powered.

Also, ECM is not broken, that's how ECM works in real life. Look it up.

THIS HAS TAKEN OVER AN HOUR OF MY TIME. and by then 14 pages had erupted.


This is a game. If ECM works like it does in real life, no one would play this game anymore. Shouldn't we have cruise missile in place of LRM. The thing that can hit target, cover or no cover :)

#447 PaintedWolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 1,114 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:31 AM

What IraqiWalker said. BTW those complaining about Boats, I say /tactics. Also as effective as it is most people still don't even boat, and probably never will just due to bias/preference. All these threads are about is trying to micro-manage somebody else's Mech.

View PostSheraf, on 19 March 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

This is a game. If ECM works like it does in real life, no one would play this game anymore. Shouldn't we have cruise missile in place of LRM. The thing that can hit target, cover or no cover :)


Dude Battletech TT is an ABSTRACTION. When the AC-20 fires that can mean it fired 10,20, 100, 200 shells. The ECM is also abstracted, who knows what kind of micro-variables it influences?

As for the rest of it, I do not think ECM is broken at all. It doesn't even effect 90% of the weaponry.

Quote

We've been saying that what you need is tactics and not be stupid, and have a multi-role team. Multi role in the infantry is a rifleman as they generally are equipped with rifles for medium to long range combat, pistols for close range combat and last ditch efforts, and knives for melee combat. Send a bunch of them in, and have each one use only one type of weapon to support the team, and you have boats. You need the guy with the heavy rifle to give support and suppression fire. You need the speedy one with the knife and pistol to close in and kill in close quarters combat situations while being supported by a couple of grenades from his buddies.


This. That is what most rational people will do. Instead they 100% want to change the rules and make Mech design even more restrictive then TT. Already the Hardpoints system is a concession made to avoid "crazy boating".

Quote

Look, in real life combat situations (and this game is trying to be a good simulation of that) you will always have boats. You will always have specialists. Your soldiers are not identical clones of each other. You have some that are faster runners than other, or sharper shooters, or better demolitionists, all with different skills. You might call them all riflemen, but they are not all experts with the rifle. They're good with it, but they specialize in other things. Some will specialize in that rifle of theirs. Others will pick the knife instead.


Quote

That's how any military is conducted, small scale or large scale. There is never one unit that does it all. That's just a waste of resources, a jack of all trades is a master of none.


Again /tactics.

#448 Anjian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 3,735 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:49 AM

Boating is a fundamental problem of the Mechwarrior - Battletech franchise. Boating has been around even with the old Mechwarrior games. The problem comes with the design of the game itself. Always remember, this started as a tabletop game, and not designed from scratch as an FPS game. Mixing tabletop lore to the FPS experience doesn't create a clean experience. Thus, the idea that we will have boating and continue to have boating has to be accepted.

But we need to have the weapons tweaked instead. And tweaked. And tweaked. The proper Mechwarrior experience involves one where combatants can survive long enough to have a truly thinking tactical battle.

This so reminds me of my EVE Online days. They had similar problems. They had a vision that their battles are going to last for minutes, allowing for all sorts of tactical intervention. But they had a problem when ships are fighting and dying too quickly, a big problem indeed because these ships actually needed to be earned with a degree of grind and work. Their ships had similar customization concepts to Mechwarrior that allows for modules and boating, and combat also involves focus fire. Like one time, those Amarr lasers turns out to have an overpowering experience compared to the other weapons sysetms like the projectiles used by the Minmatar. So the developers did is nerf and nerf and nerf. They explain it quite well, that they are eager to apply the nerf hammer and when they do so, they would rather do it in the side of applying the nerf heavily, rather than lightly. And they were right. EVE Online is now on its ninth year.

Edited by Anjian, 19 March 2013 - 09:50 AM.


#449 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 03:35 PM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 18 March 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

Some people have complained about weapon convergence, and you know what. It doesn't make sense not to have it. All weapon systems try to focus fire in real life and in video games. That's efficient and effective, it drops an enemy dead in seconds. It makes sense to have convergence.

The mechs that have arms can have the best convergence out of any other mech design. Even the ones with so called "ears" can have convergence. One possible thing to do for mechs with ears is give them a minimum range under which weapons cannot converge. Like say 90 meters, beyond that point the hydraulics of the ears don't allow them to tilt enough to get the convergence needed. Mechs with arms have more flexibility in that regard, however their arms are bigger targets to hit.

Or maybe something about having the torso weapons not converge at all and just go straight. Although that will punish some chasis types.

Maybe the devs can find something to work with in there. That was just an example. That's all.


I personally like the idea that individual weapons do not converge, thus fire straight ahead. But the arms do converge on the arm crosshair, thus do allow for convergence.

The pattern of fire should be around a box relative to their position located on the mech. Here is the example I gave for this:

Quote

Something I have begin to notice in MWO is that builds which can pin-point a lot of weaponry onto a single point for as long as possible than builds which can actually deal more damage but generally spreads the damage across a target.

This is part of why the phenomenon on why players generally only aim for the torsos. All their weapons can easily pin-point to a Left/Right Torso, which also destroys the arms in the process. Thus, there is little emphasis on destroying arms because you can just aim all your weaponry at the torso and destroy a mech or maim it by killing both a torso and arm.

I suggest three mechanic changes to fix this issue by placing more emphasis on arm mounted weaponry while removing some ability for all weapons to target a specific point, thus allowing more weapon fire to spread.

Suggestion One - Multiple Weapon Fire Out of a Single Weapon Port

This is an odd mechanic by PGI. I understand the logic behind allowing multiple weapons to be equipped to allow for more customization but why allow multiple weapons to fire out of the same physical weapon port at the same time?

A good example of this is the Atlas Right Torso 2 Ballistic hardpoint / 1 Physical Weapon port location. If someone equips two UAC/5s in this location, and places both of them on the same weapon group without chain fire, then why does both UAC/5s fire at the same time, having overlapping projectiles? This essentially makes it a UAC/10. This also fools your target because they believe a single UAC/5 is firing but actually it is 2 UAC/5s firing at the same time.

The Cicada is another prime example of this. With multiple Energy hardpoints in the same physical Weapon port, they can fire both laser, which overlaps each other looking like a single laser.

So I suggest adding a mechanic where if multiple weapons are fired at the same time out of a single weapon port, just fire the weapons immediately one after the other. This will help spread a bit of the damage just because of the delta time between each firing while moving and also not be used to fool your target.

Suggestion Two - Arm Actuators Given Meaning

This is a brand new mechanic added, which I believe PGI is planning on adding at some point in time. It is fairly straight forward implementation based on how existing mechs already behave and actually sticks to the TT actuator charts fairly well.

Shoulder actuator - Allow arm weaponry to converge on the Arm crosshair.
Upper Arm actuator - Allow vertical deviation of the Arm crosshair from the Torso crosshair.
Lower Arm actuator - Allow horizontal deviation of the Arm crosshair from the Torso crosshair.
Hand actuator - Allow hand related actions to be performed.

Suggestion Three - Torso Mounted Weaponry Do Not Converge

I personally think this is a big balancing factor to the game and part of the reason why nobody aims on arms and everyone can just place the crosshair on a single location and alpha strike, having all damage hit that single location.

I suggest making all torso mounted weaponry only aim straight ahead, aiming in relation to the cockpit view. Basically, a straight line is drawn down the center of the player's perspective. All torso mounted weaponry fires straight ahead from the mech in relation to this line. As a note, arm mounted weaponry will still only fire straight ahead, like torso weaponry. Just both arms point directly at the Arm crosshair.

A good example is the Atlas. The two Center Torso Laser ports will fire straight ahead, not converging on the location on which it is aimed at, but instead will be aimed at the Torso crosshair, landing in relation to the weapons mounted on the mech. So the two Lasers will land below the Torso crosshair, one directly below (because the cockpit is actually out of the left eye, thus the left Center Torso laser will be directly below you) and the other below and slightly to the right. The Ballistic and Missile hardpoints will be aiming to the below/left and below/right of the Torso crosshair.

What this does is removes the ability to pin-point all weaponry mounted on a mech (unless it is all in the arms) to hit a single location. Thus, placing a larger emphasis on arm mounted weaponry (with intact Shoulder actuators). While alpha strikes will still be around, they will not be the single location devastating that they are now, but instead be the wild firing of multiple systems to place as much damage on the target as fast as possible, not worrying about where on the mech it hits.

And with the greater emphasis on allowing convergence on arms only, players might start choosing to destroy an arm first before taking out the Left/Right Torso, especially on mechs which mount a large amount of weaponry on those arms.

Below is an example of what I am talking about:

Posted Image



TLDR

Remove ability to fire multiple weapons out of the same weapon port at the same time.
Add arm actuator functionality.
Make torso weaponry not converge, but instead fire straight ahead based on distance to selected target or longest range weapon.
All weapons fire straight ahead.


Suggestion one might be totally moot, as explained in the suggestion if they are following suit with the Jagermech on all other mechs in the game. Physically, all weapons will be present on the mech, thus would fix the convergence issue regarding those mechs which have multiple hardpoints in a single location.

Edited by Zyllos, 19 March 2013 - 03:36 PM.


#450 Zerstorer Stallin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 683 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:44 PM

View PostM4rtyr, on 18 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:



Uhh, the mechlab doesn't break the balance. Weapons and equipment not being balanced breaks the balance. And the thing is the minmaxers, as always, take the most powerful weapons and equipment on the chasis' that can have them.

The chasis and concept of boating is not what is broken.



While I agree that some of the weapon balancing is off and boating makes it shine, a mech lab will always break a battletech game.

#451 M4rtyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 691 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostZerstorer Stallin, on 19 March 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:



While I agree that some of the weapon balancing is off and boating makes it shine, a mech lab will always break a battletech game.


Well to be honest that is true to a degree, not toally game breaking to me but its very cheesy. I perfer IS stock only in TT (well Clan is ok if is clanvclan). But there is a point when you have less people because of lack of customization.

Real question is which drive off more potential customers, cheese or lack of customization.

I my extperience with the lack of charater in most gamers the bigger hit would be lack of customization.

When I think about it though, even some stock mechs shine better then others. So you'd still drive people away with the fotm mechs.

#452 White Bear 84

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 08 April 2013 - 04:33 PM

I vote we just bring in the Wraith and everything will be settled.

Posted Image

#453 winterborn107

    Member

  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • LocationSouth central WI

Posted 08 April 2013 - 09:42 PM

I think they should limit the amount of specific type's of weapons a mech can carry. that will prevent boating, diversify mech types/builds, and make for a more diversified battle experience.

Especially the 'OP weapons' or 'Cheese builds'. Rather then constantly nerfing the Dmg or heat of the weapons, limit the amount of them a mech can carry.

Personally i dont see boating of most weapons a problem. its when you can boat powerfull weapons and have a 40+ pinpoint alpha, or can core a mech in 2 shots that i start getting frustrated at the game. if some one wants to boat a but load of lrm 5s or med/small lassers thats fine.

#454 Ratiborus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 116 posts
  • LocationRussia, Moscow

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:02 AM

Yeah, restriction of double AC20 and double Gauss bots may be useful and reasonable.

#455 Yokaiko

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,775 posts

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:52 AM

View PostAnjian, on 19 March 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

Boating is a fundamental problem of the Mechwarrior - Battletech franchise. Boating has been around even with the old Mechwarrior games.


Correct. If they had balanced everything to STOCK before turning the playerbase lose with the mechlab a lot of this could have been averted.

View PostAnjian, on 19 March 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

But we need to have the weapons tweaked instead. And tweaked. And tweaked. The proper Mechwarrior experience involves one where combatants can survive long enough to have a truly thinking tactical battle.


Debatabe, that is also an artifact of tripling the rate of fire on everything without touching the damage.

View PostAnjian, on 19 March 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

This so reminds me of my EVE Online days. They had similar problems. They had a vision that their battles are going to last for minutes, allowing for all sorts of tactical intervention. But they had a problem when ships are fighting and dying too quickly,


Stacking 1200 heads in a system had nothing to do with that, now did it. Politics are why I quit playing eve. Blue donuts full of unpalatable choices in alliances.

#456 MasterErrant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts
  • LocationDenver

Posted 09 April 2013 - 01:15 PM

yet again the problem isn't boating it's all the little decisions the Devs have made making it attractive to eschew teamplay in favour of quick kills.

#457 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:10 PM

View PostMasterErrant, on 09 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

yet again the problem isn't boating it's all the little decisions the Devs have made making it attractive to eschew teamplay in favour of quick kills.

That's the thing though. Boats don't get a lot of kills or any nowadays. Heck over the past two weeks I've ran into literally 4 boats. One of them was a hunchie with 9 Medium Lasers, but that's what that model is designed for, so it barely counts. I played an average of 12 hours per week, and all I got was 4 boats, 4!.

It's still the same problem. If you're playing solo boats can be an issue, if you're playing with a group on the other hand, boats are free lunchables. They are meals on wheels. It's hillarious for me to see people complain about what is probably 6% of the player population, let's be generous, make it 10%. You're worried about 10% of your opponents, and say that they are over powered? I have successfully mopped the floor with every kind of boat in this game using nothing more than a COM-3A.

I have done the same with my COM-2D but I guess many of you will scream that it has ECM which is OP. Yeah, but ECM only counters the Streak Cat and LRM boats. Not laser/PPC boats, not SRM boats, not AC boats, not Gauss boats. If a 25 ton light mech, arguably the weakest of all the lights can mop the floor with every boat in the game, how can they be a problem?

Just so you know, I loaded my 2D with 3 SRM4s (sometimes 1 SRM6 and 1 SRM4) and 1 Medium Laser. My 3A had 2 MEdium Pulse Lasers on it and 2 SRM4s (sometimes 2 Streak2s) and I ripped things to shreds.

I could also mention my COM-1B with 3 MLs (sometimes 3 Small Pulse Lasers) and one SRM4 (sometimes SRM2 or Streak2), but people might call it a laser boat.

It should also be mentioned that I did that before I even started getting my Elite proficiencies, and to this day my commandoes do not go above 122Kph, so I'm not using max speed. I also did all of this damage during the second half of March, just so people don't think it was back during the lag shield days.

#458 Nebelfeuer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 302 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 02:04 PM

hmm my count of boats is considerably higher the last days then 6-10% its more like 4-5 Boats per match on average.
True a more balanced loadout has a good chance of beating boats if you play with a pre - in pugsituations you do not even know the loadout of your teammates and coordination is difficult so you can not rely on anything and boating gets to be funkiller No1.
Limiting the customisation options to a degree that prevents boating will actually bring in more players because the gameplay will get more diverse instead of 1-2shoting you would actually have to make use of your recources. Asked 6 friends of mine that I recently introduced to the game. 3 of them will probaly not play it again because of cheese builds and 2will use cheesebuilds (they plan on buying a LL and a PPC boat) untill they get prevented - they won´t stop playing then though- and 1 does not care about it and plays whatever he likes.
Besides there is not much use in having a mechlab when people only use it to create the same 6 builds over and over again - so limiting customisation options would actually lead to more customisation.

#459 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 14 April 2013 - 04:08 PM

I'm gonna disagree on that because math.

If you limit customization, you're not going to create more diversity, besides, why are you punishing a Catapult player who is supposed to have tons of LRMs or SRMs, for doing what his chasis is built to do?

It makes no sense to punish the players, rip out the lore, which is the main attraction for most people, and limit people's experience just because people want to play solo in a team game?

Also, co-ordination is not that hard, with pugs it's harder because you have no voice contact, but it's still possible, I do it a lot, even if I drop with one other person, the two of us usually can guide the entire group, usually with minimal mistakes, and sometimes we win, and some we lose.

#460 Rattlehead NZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • LocationAuckland New Zealand

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:47 PM

Last night my friend and i played for like 6 hours and there was at least 1-2 boats on every match. In one match the enemy had 6x ppc stalkers.

Im sure a game mechanic can be added to reduce boating, but i do agree that if restrictions are added then other builds may be effected as well. I know PGI talked about an idea where extra heat costs when boating too many of the same weapon and or firing more than one at a time. So a 6x PPC stalker would still work cycling the weapons rather than firing all 6 at once. Still able to boat, but with the weapons cycling there is a chance of the damage being spread. Gauss boats who were the cheesy boat of the past are now excepted and not talked about as 30dps a shot doesn't compare to 6xppc 60dps per shot. For me it's not so much the damage they output its how boring it is. If I made a boating drinking game i wouldnt last 2 games some nights lol

Canon or not, all i know is that boating is boring and is not promoting variety.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users