463 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Royalewithcheese, on 15 March 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

What makes boating inherently worse or more unbalanced (gameplay-wise) than a "balanced loadout?" The 3-L has a balanced loadout haha.

So does an atlas.

[MustrumRidcully]

OpCentar, on 15 March 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

Couldn't read all the replies so I might have skipped someone mentioning the most simple fix for boating - exponential heat buildup upon firing identical weapon systems.


6xSRM6 A1? sure go right ahead, fire all those at once you'll be at 90% heat.


The basis is introducing a heat penalty for boaters, how to execute it is up for debate and reliant on gameplay balance. It could be a simple have more than x identical weapons for y heat penalty, or it could be a more complex version which includes weapon specifics and whether they are alpha, chain, or individually fired.

So, how will this deal with, say, a 3-4 Gauss Rifle Assault Mech, should we ever get one? You'd have to raise the heat by a factor of ten for these mechs. Heat is not a limiter for every weapon in Battletech, and it shouldn't be one either.

The only "heat penalty" that would make some sense on a general level is lowering the heat capacity bonus from double heat sinks to the same bonus as standard sinks (but also compensating by making the truly sink twice as much per sink as a standard heat sink.) No more 6 PPC pinpoint Alphas, but still viable 6 PPC mechs.

Addressing convergence is a much more useful approach. If there is any mech that is exploited at all by boating, it's convergence. Everything else is a pretty much a problem of the specific weapon that is boated being imbalanced.
And it's not like convergence needs to go entirely, or should be replaced with RNG or Cone of Fire mechanics. Just make the convergence either to a fixed point, or the only thing that converges are the arms (so they point to the spot you're aiming at, the weapon inside the arm would fire parallel to the line the arms have to the convergence point to)

[OneEyed Jack]

Imperial 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.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you should pull yer head outta the dark place it's stuck in before voicing yours.

I consider this anti-boating crusade to be asinine and most of the mechs I play are not boats. My most-used mech is an Ilya with 2xGauss/3xML. If it had the hardpoints, I'd probably pack some missiles on there and run 3 different weapon groups. Go ahead, call that a Gauss boat when I have more MLs and limited hardpoint types. My second most used mech is an Atlas that can't even use more than 3 of any one weapon. I've spent the last few days topping the charts in my Dragon-1N, and before that in my Flame, both of which use 3 completely distinct weapon types. In mediums I've come to love the Trenchbucket and have been leveling 2 variants. My 7M uses 3 distinct weapon types, despite only having 2 hardpoint types. Sorry, my 3C only uses 2 weapon types, but the hardpoints are kind of restrictive and I didn't want just a variant of my 7M without JJ.

My favorite mech ever was unfortunately invalidated by the combination of ECM and Artemis changes. A Cat C1 with 2xLRM20/2xSSRM/2xML. ECM and Arti changes made it's indirect too ineffective. It needed TAG to counter ECM in LOS, but that cost it a ML, making it very weak to lights with ECM and too ammo-dependent. Some would call it an LRM boat, but considering I only carried either 4 or 6 tons of ammo (18 or 24 shots) and did at least half my fighting at close range, I wouldn't. My favorite Cat now is a C4 with 2xERPPC/2xSSRM/2xML.

My favorite Stalker build is 3xLL/2xML/5xSSRM. Not the most powerful, but versatile and with no real weaknesses besides those inherent in a Stalker. But I suppose you'd call that a Streak boat since I have a whopping 7.5 tons plus ammo invested into a single weapons system on an 85 ton mech.

Do I have boats? I have 22 mechs currently in my mechbay, of course I have boats.

Am I "incapable of operating a mech a multiple ranges"? I'd say... probably not.

And yet I will continue to defend the ability to boat and continue to point out how idiotic any arbitrary anti-boating coding, such as diminishing returns, increased heat from stacked weapons while separate weapon types creating the same heat would not suffer, or how many of the same weapon can go in despite multiple hardpoints for the same weapon, are.

Are boats powerful if you engage them on their terms? Yes. Are they worth a damn if you choose to use your brain, instead? No. Quit engaging on their terms and maybe you won't be crying about them, either.

[Royalewithcheese]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 15 March 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

Really? You're going to use ECM/Streaks as an example?

Sure. Moblity + ecm superiority + 35 tons + light-hunting weapons is the sort of thing that actually makes a config powerful, not the choice to run 8xMLas instead of 4xMLas+2xSRM6.

Yokaiko, on 15 March 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

So does an atlas.

Or most poptarts

[Plavis]

The A1 cat was built and was always a dedicated missile boat, since ecm introduction a lot of players got frustrated about not being able to use the A1 , people making fun of te poor kitty and how it became a pice of **** after ECM, thats how it was reborn to alpha cat, so basicaly it became more deadly after ECM introduction, http://mwomercs.com/...uild-after-ecm/, good cat pilots did not give up, they adapted to the ECM change, so dont blame them.
BTW i latley came up whit a new build, i call it te dragoncat, its ment to hunt down alphacats(srm cats).

[Yokaiko]

People were running splatcats in closed beta, they were kind of like a short range 6 PPC stalker with SHS, now they are kind of a monster, but not that bad.

[Karl Streiger]

OneEyed Jack, on 15 March 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

I consider this anti-boating crusade to be asinine and most of the mechs I play are not boats. My most-used mech is an Ilya with 2xGauss/3xML. If it had the hardpoints, I'd probably pack some missiles on there and run 3 different weapon groups.

Just 3? Means you have only 2?...sry Sir you have a boat.
Gauss in chain...Gauss dual...Medium Laser in Arm other Medium Laser....Alpha
You need 5 weapon groups to not boat it....

[Corvus Antaka]

Pretty simple really. Boats have an inherint advantage, all weapons converge in the same manner, dual gauss, laserboat, SRM boat, etc. The pilot needs no skill in dealing with multiple weapons systems that require different skillsets. This is why boating is popular, because it is easier, and because it is effective.

The simple solution is to offset the benefits of boating with penalties, such as excess heat when firing more than 3 of a kind weapons in 1 shot, thus forcing more link and chain firing to occur, spreading damage more and forcing more skill back into the equation.

Unfortunately right now in MWO the heatcap is so incredibly high that boating is significantly advantageous.

[Ph30nix]

im sorry but PGI cannot currently do anything to help with your failings and inability to adapt to the ever changing battle field.

[OneEyed Jack]

I'll add that if boating is such an I-win button and a "problem that needs to be addressed" (despite no actual clear definition of where the cut-off is between OK and problem), then why the hell are the vast majority of personal mechs (not even counting trial) currently being played not boats?

[Silentium]

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.

[Lootee]

MustrumRidcully, on 15 March 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Addressing convergence is a much more useful approach. If there is any mech that is exploited at all by boating, it's convergence. Everything else is a pretty much a problem of the specific weapon that is boated being imbalanced.
And it's not like convergence needs to go entirely, or should be replaced with RNG or Cone of Fire mechanics. Just make the convergence either to a fixed point, or the only thing that converges are the arms (so they point to the spot you're aiming at, the weapon inside the arm would fire parallel to the line the arms have to the convergence point to)

That might be possible but for certain mechs it won't help. The 6 RT lasers on the HBK are packed so tightly they would still all hit the same spot. As would the 6 arm mounted lasers on the Jenner F. The Stalker and Atlas RS could still put 4 PPCs in the arms for perfect convergence too.

Maybe they could add a ripple fire effect when firing a weapon group. If the group contains more than 2 weapons. It will fire a pair of them, wait a half or full second and then fire another pair, repeat until it's cycled through the whole group. Just tossing a few ideas around.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 15 March 2013 - 07:13 AM.

[Ph30nix]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 March 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Pretty simple really. Boats have an inherint advantage, all weapons converge in the same manner, dual gauss, laserboat, SRM boat, etc. The pilot needs no skill in dealing with multiple weapons systems that require different skillsets. This is why boating is popular, because it is easier, and because it is effective.

The simple solution is to offset the benefits of boating with penalties, such as excess heat when firing more than 3 of a kind weapons in 1 shot, thus forcing more link and chain firing to occur, spreading damage more and forcing more skill back into the equation.

Unfortunately right now in MWO the heatcap is so incredibly high that boating is significantly advantageous.

so your argument is esseantly boating is so easy because you have to only hit one button, and your solution is to make people hit 2? or at most 3?

seriously do people actually think about these things?

[Zyllos]

OpCentar, on 15 March 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

I don't see how you can fix player targeting skills, in TT there's a roll to calculate hit location. In MWO whoever has more luck or skill to hit a single point on the enemy mech deals more effective damage.

Ask and you shall receive!

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:





Even thought it is not shown above, regarding the arms, you can think of the torso suggestion as the same with arms. Draw a box around each arm, having the boundry around the arms to fit each weapon system attached and the middle of the arm itself.

Then, trace each weapon to hit the same location in a boxed diagram of each arm (as above for the torso, keeping weapons in their own relationship of each arm).

Lastly, then converge that box size to the target based on the distance to the target. Each weapon will land in that box, no matter the distance (but remember, that box grows/shrinks in size with distance) with the same relationship.

This removes all individual weapon convergence, then removes torso weapon convergence specifically, while maintaining the ability to point arms at specific locations.

The large torso convergence square is always centered on the Torso crosshair while both arms (with Shoulder actuators) with the small arm covergence squares will center on the Arm crosshair. The arm convergence squares can be different sizes (different shaped arms and mounted weaponry).

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.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Royalewithcheese, on 15 March 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Sure. Moblity + ecm superiority + 35 tons + light-hunting weapons is the sort of thing that actually makes a config powerful, not the choice to run 8xMLas instead of 4xMLas+2xSRM6.

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.

[Yokaiko]

All they have to do is change the torso weapons to converge with a minimum 540m or so.

That way your long range shorts actually hit, and you can't stack a pile or torso lasers (or SRM) into one hitbox.

Leave the arms as they are, that way three is at least a choice.

[OneEyed Jack]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 March 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

The simple solution is to offset the benefits of boating with penalties, such as excess heat when firing more than 3 of a kind weapons in 1 shot,

Please explain how it makes sense that if multiple of the same weapon generate a combined X heat, and 1 or more different weapons generate the exact same combined X heat, the multiple of the same should get mysterious ghost heat applied from the aether? In what kind of twisted, window-licking logic does that make sense?

[MustrumRidcully]

PanchoTortilla, on 15 March 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

That might be possible but for certain mechs it won't help. The 6 RT lasers on the HBK would still all hit the same spot. As would the 6 arm mounted lasers on the Jenner F. The Stalker and Atlas RS could still put 4 PPCs in the arms for perfect convergence too.

Maybe they could add a ripple fire effect when firing a weapon group. If the group contains more than 2 weapons. It will fire a pair of them, wait a half or full second and then fire another pair, repeat until it's cycled through the whole group. Just tossing a few ideas around.

The deal is - the 6 RT Lasers in the Hunchback are also an incredible weakness. If that hunch is gone, you're mech is almost entirely disarmed. It's an Achilles Heel.

If you really want that pin-point precision with your boat, you need to accept the the risk that losing a component will completely ruin your day.
You either put your guns in your arms - one of the weakest armored part that you always have to expose if you want to use your weapons
Or you put it inside a single torso location, making it easy to identify your weak spot and target it.

It is elegant and a logical drawback. Heck, it even explains why the HBK 4P has the layout it has - a laser boat loadout would otherwise be much more sensible on the 4SP - put some lasers in those missile tubes and go to to town. But at least in MW:O we would have a reason why that wasn't done - you couldn't be pinpoint precise anymore with such a setup.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ph30nix, on 15 March 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

so your argument is esseantly boating is so easy because you have to only hit one button, and your solution is to make people hit 2? or at most 3?

seriously do people actually think about these things?

Boating is easy because you hit one button.

Here is the basic splatcat attack "Sneak up on mech=>Put target reticle over mech=>Click Mouse=>Done".

Here is a balanced loud out attack "Try and circle to make sure your gun arm can shoot mech=>Keep eye on cooldown's of 3 different weapon types=>Line up so that you can hit with torso weapons and arm weapons=>note when you can only hit with arm weapons=>hit mouse 1, 2 or 3 depending on situation=>note strengths of opposing mech and perhaps try and manuver into medium to long range to give yourself an advantage."

You don't have to take any of those things into account with splatcats.

[Gaan Cathal]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 March 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Pretty simple really. Boats have an inherint advantage, all weapons converge in the same manner, dual gauss, laserboat, SRM boat, etc. The pilot needs no skill in dealing with multiple weapons systems that require different skillsets. This is why boating is popular, because it is easier, and because it is effective.

Firstly, where do you people get the idea there are Boaters and Non-Boaters and never the twain shall meet? It's nonsensical. Secondly, your argument is pretty moot - there's no necessary correlation between multiple weapon types and skill. I've come across plenty of 6MLAS JR7-F pilots who were excellent pilots who I struggle to beat, if I beat them at all, and likewise plenty of Cataphract pilots who can't get their head around a jinking target, and think sweeping as many compartments as possible with a given laser volley is best. It doesn't take a significant amount of skill to be aware of differing ranges, convergence or fire rates, it just doesn't.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 March 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

The simple solution is to offset the benefits of boating with penalties, such as excess heat when firing more than 3 of a kind weapons in 1 shot, thus forcing more link and chain firing to occur, spreading damage more and forcing more skill back into the equation.

This would nerf pinpoint alpha, not boating. You'd still get 4/6PPC stalkers, they'd just fire the arms independently (as most 4PPC stalkers do in general use anyway). Not that it wouldn't be interesting to see the effects of, I agree the game might be marginally better with slightly less pinpoint alpha, but it's not a 'boating or not' thing. Wouldn't really affect Splatcats worth a damn, for example, since they don't rely on the pinpoint.