148 replies to this topic

[OneEyed Jack]

MadcatX, on 28 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Although a well thought out post, I disagree mainly because I don't want this game to become a twitch shooter of one-shots. Add to that the fact that after you die, you have to stay for the entire match to get your reward.

You still get the reward if you quit after dying. My understanding is you lose out on C-bill rewards for salvage, if you do, but I'm not positive about that. And salvage is only awarded to the winners, anyway.

Khobai, on 28 March 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

The skill aspect of the game is in mitigating as much of the incoming damage as possible using movement and cover while maximizing as much of your outgoing damage as possible by managing heat and firing at the right ranges.

Um... yeah... that's what I do in this game. Are you suggesting you don't?

Quote

Mechs are meant to take a lot of punishment and whoever weathers that punishment better wins; its mostly a game of attrition.

In 3025 with stock mechs, sure. Nothing did much damage and it was typically a game of hitting each other a couple dozen time before the was any appreciable effect. And it was fine for TT. By 3050 it was a whole different game with better gear and bigger guns. Even FASA realized that slow and grindy attrition games got boring after awhile. As a FPS/Sim (whatever you wanna call it) a slow, grindy, attrition based game where even slow mechs could run around in plain view (as lights could until recently), secure in the knowledge that no one can land enough damage to matter in any reasonable amount of time, would be boring as hell. Despite the rampant hyperbole, mechs rarely drop from a single shot from anything. Sure there's the occasional cockpit hit, which I wouldn't trade away for anything, but even that's considerably tougher than TT due to enhanced armor/internals.

Even the largest alphas in the game,most mechs can absorb on their armor, if the player didn't skimp armor. Maybe, if it catches a limb, you might knock it off in one hit. The mechs that can't take those hits are small, fast and difficult to hit in the first place. If a player is struggling to land a single hit (not counting grazing with a lazer for next to no damage), then hitting should have a reasonable chance of accomplishing something. Two big alphas in the same spot? Either your opponent is good and deserves the rewards for landing the shots, or you played very poorly and deserve the punishment he's dishing out. Most likely a mixture of the two.

The possibility of big hits forces a player to think tactically, because they can't afford to just ignore that possibility and still be successful. Take away that possibility and it's just a slugging match with no real thinking required.

Khobai, on 28 March 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

That would requite a complete overhaul of the entire heat system.

Heat penalties would be completely meaningless with the current dissipation rates... because the penalties would only last for a few seconds at most. So you would have to slow heat dissipation considerably to make the penalties more appreciable.

I'm not sure how you figure that. It takes more than a few seconds for a mech at significant heat to cool off unless they're running insane numbers of heat sinks and they stop producing additional heat. It may not be a big deal for a mech that can withdraw behind cover and wait it out, but in the middle of a scrap, that's not often an option, and if it affected speed/maneuverability then it would be even harder. Even assuming you are correct and the effects last "only a few seconds", those few seconds can be a long, long time in the middle of a fight.

[jakucha]

If you can hit their cockpit with 1 gauss and a laser or two on chain you'll kill as fast as an alpha just spreading their damage over your entire mech, or faster.

[Gopblin]

Agree with OP. Let me explain it this way:
If we have a shooting game where weapons are very powerful, armor is very low, and tactics are hugely important (e.g. Arma III, or any realistic shooter really), one good player can take on several mediocre ones and come out on top.

If we have a shooting game where weapons are very weak, engagement ranges are short, and armor is thick, the role of skill in engagements is hugely reduced.

Sure, rudimentary tactics are still necessary, but honestly I think most of the difficulty in MWO is caused by the clunky interface and lack of communication and not real tactical challenge.

Do we want the game to require skill, or no?

Best wishes,
Daniel

Edited by Gopblin, 28 March 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Alpha strike builds isn't a problem. Problem is perfect weapon convergence. PPC-zilla Stalker is only dangerous because all 6 PPCs hit exact same location. When people say that armor is doubled compared to TT game they keep forgetting that in TT each of your weapons hit different locations on an enemy mech rolled at random. You also roll for a location you hit for each of your fired missiles separately be it SRMs or LRMs. They also forget that in TT each weapon fires once in a turn, so a gauss rifle and a small laser have same firing rate. Personally I hate boating and ret@rded builds like 6 PPCs or 6 SRM-6s but BattleTech is full of canon boating mechs, its just that they fire differently there and thus aren't so OP.

[Corwin Vickers]

A gauss rifle is a 1 shot kill to the cockpit on any mech in the TT.

So are clan ERPPCs making them pretty feared.

1/12 chance to hit the head. 1/6 if they are in partial cover.

Who believes that you are supposed to turn a mech into a stick in the board game before you kill it? That was rarely the case and I would say most battles, after engagement, lasted at most 60 seconds (6 turns).

[KinLuu]

Karr285, on 28 March 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

If this was true at all they would not have doubled Armour PERIOD.

High alpha builds reign supreme because of double armor.

[Anony Mouse]

The paintball analogy is telling, you've aptly described the game types we have now, which is sad if you think about it. I think with the game types we have now the propensity for alpha builds is an inevitability, as assault is essentially just a broken deathmatch, and conquest is just a broken deathmatch, the former by design and the latter in its use. Hopefully some game types with more intellectual prerequisites will in turn give us some more strategic gameplay.

[Capt Cole 117]

By the OPs logic Call of Duty must be one of the most skillful games of all time.

[Brilig]

Instead of cone of fire why not change the cross hair system around. You can keep things skill based, and avoid pinpoint damage issues.

For instance here is what the Hunchback 4Ps cross hairs could look like.

That would keep the weapons from being pinpoint, without the random number generator frustration. Each torso based weapon or weapon grouping could have its own cross hair. Nothing too extreme, but enough to spread the damage around.

[Saint Rigid]

Some of us prefer it to be longer combat... without being "long" combat. Regardless of tactics or strategies or 'deepness'... some people just find it cool to have a scrap with the enemy and run away missing your left arm and all the armor from your right torso. It's about it being INTERESTING.

A lot of people bring up the idea that MWO doesn't have respawns... but they also forget to bring up the idea that MWO doesn't have ANY FORM of healing WHATSOEVER. No clerics. No Medpacks. No scrambling to revive a downed friend. No recharging energy shields. If combat is too fast then you can't "enjoy" having a broken leg for the rest of the match. There's little point to featuring dismemberment if your whole mech dies at the same time.

So I humbly disagree.

And in regards to longer battle requires less skill, I believe that this assumption is inherently flawed. This sounds like it is based off standard FPS logic. Weak guns, high health = don't have to worry about dying so just rush forward and slap eachother with bullets. The problem with this is you have varying degrees of weapon strength, ranges, and most importantly, COMPONENTS. If someone is using two pistols in call of duty you can't blow off one of his arms and decrease his dps. You either kill him, or he kills you. In MWO you have lots of options (i.e. tactics/strategies). If he has two "pistols" (i.e. short range) you can blow up a leg and run away. You can stay long range if you've got the numbers on him. You can blow off one hand,... and then if you feel like it blow off the other hand. No more pistols... no more problem.

Or you can go straight for the kill in the interests of time... but you will likely receive the most return fire in this instance.

Trade offs. Drawbacks. Pros and cons. Tactical decisions. These are all concepts inherent to the design philosophy of MWO. They are skills... just like pointing and clicking, but some of us find them to be just a little bit "cooler"

[Takony]

This week's flavour of delicious tears: "Alpha is OP!" with a generous bit of "Aiming is OP!" topping.

My humble opinion is this:

PVP => highest possible burst damage, while also maintaining relatively high speed (in order to avoid damage completely by moving out of it's way), you cool off while you reposition.
Required player skills: out-thinking / out-flanking your enemy, good piloting and steady aim (since torso twist speed is a given, "twitch" skills are not so important).

PVE => highest sustainable dps, which requires heat efficiency, but maintaining high speed is not a real requirement, since computer controlled opponents are 100% predictable.
Required player skills: executing flawlessly the few orchestrated strategies in order to beat that particular PVE scenario.

PVE is likely not going to be part of MWO. So players are forced to out-think and out-pilot each-other, in order to set up decisive shots.

Peppering each hitbox of a mech with whatever weapon is not going to work ever. Destroying key components will.
Tanking damage is not really and option in MWO, so we have to rely on avoidance: moving out of the enemy pilot's line of fire, using speed/jump jets/cover, and if you are going to get hit no matter what, at least twist your torso to spread the damage a bit, shield your mech with the arms or whatever.

Variety? Please give us more mechs and more weapons, and more exciting maps to use them.

[Jock Blaine]

Fitzbattleaxe, on 28 March 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

My general complaint about high alpha builds is that they limit variability. They limit variability in builds, because some builds are just clearly more effective within a certain skill range, and so people aren't going to experiment as much.

But that is never going to change. If, for example, you make a large variance of weaponry obligatory (in whichever way) there will always be optimal configurations. Example: 4 ERPPC's get a heat penalty: 2 ERPPC/1gauss combination would be better. Different hardpoints, different mechs get the advantage, different gameplay, but there will always be an optimal build.

The same for different ranges. The whole thing about the mechlab is that people will optimise their builds. And even if you would take that away and have people pick a standard mech, people will pick the mechs that are optimised.

And now to contradict myself: For most people, optimisation means optimised for their gameplay. In practice I see enough different mechs on the battlefield that I really don't think this optimisation business is a problem.

[GODzillaGSPB]

You know why I play MWO? Because it is a lot like paintball. NOT. If I wanted that I'd go play Hawken. So...go play Hawken!

[Cebi]

No. We aren't playing paintball or quake. Battlemechs are designed to absorb some damage. If you want mechs and quick deaths, go play Hawken.

[Corvus Antaka]

HRR Insanity, on 28 March 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Oddly enough, doesn't Counter-Strike implement cone of fire?



You have tried and failed. The Devs have stated that 'Mechs are dying too fast for their liking. Just like in Beta. Their terrible fix (double armor) has done nothing for that but encourage the shift towards grouped big-alpha damage as I predicted.

Pinpoint precision is the reason. There is no way to fix this problem without implementing weapon spread. I said this 9 months ago. I said this 10 years ago (with MW4). It will still be true tomorrow.

Everything I stated in my post has come to pass. The current rage against AC40 boats is just the next version of this.

I disagree. outside the gauss rifle this entire situation can be solved by cutting the heatcap in half. This would cut mech firepower severly and balanced lower firepower mechs would be equally viable. the recycle time on the gauss going up would cover the gauss rifles dps variance.

light mechs etc already have enough armour and it takes a long time for a light to take down an assault from the front...tons of armour already.

precision aiming is not easy, lasers spread, ppc have lead times, etc. too many people sadly have bad habits of standing still or piloting their mechs poorly.

but every problem build like the 4 UAC 5 Jagger or the dual ac/20 is ONLY because of the high heatcap. if the dual ac20 jagger could only fire one to 2 times before hitting 90% heat, if the 6 ppc stalker couldnt fire at all without insta nuking,

more link fire - more heatsinks required, less firepower to stay viable.

problem solved. hopefully

[Thorqemada]

Successfull Alpha Striking negates the whole "location based damage" thing. Why aim for Arms and Legs and the left/right Torso when every strike is a kill?
Imho a good middleground between Alpha striking and disabling enemys part by part gives a better game!

Edited by Thorqemada, 29 March 2013 - 02:09 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

The depth of gamplay in a Mechwarrior Title is supposed to come also from elements like hit locations. Taking down a complete mech - that takes time - taking out a hit location? That happens often and early.

But due to the ammo ratios we have and the damage potential of mechs, coring is as effective as any other alternative. There is no point in shooting of arms or legs or side torsos if you can kill the enemy completely with similar damage output.

What they probably should have done is quadruple CT and Head armour, triple side torso armour, and double arm and leg armour. Suddenly it's more efficient taking down mechs location by location.

And your small, light mech that sneaks up from behind - he can't get a kill, but he can perhaps take down a hit location, and that will make a difference.

If now convergence was also limited in some way so that putting many guns in one hit location works for better convergence, you also create interesting choices - do I go for the pin-point precision alpha strike and put all my eggs in one basket, or do I rather prepare for incoming fire and spread the weapon load?

[Corwin Vickers]

I don't think we should lower the heat cap. As people have pointed out, in the board game you are allowed to float heat because whatever heat you built up that round is reduced by heatsinks before penalties come in. So imo, it's working as intended, very elegantly I might add.

What I would be in favor of is adding penalties like in the TT. You get to 25% heat you slow down a little, 50% heat it gets harder to aim, 75% electronics start to malfunction, etc. That would be extra incentive to run cooler, spread your heat build up out and yet still allow alpha strikes.

(These are not the actual penalties, I just made them up)
Actual heat table http://www.lanceradvanced.com/Gaming/Btech/ActaeonSheet.jpg




Even "chain fire" builds ride the heat line right? Just make it less desirable to be at a high heat.

Thorqemada, on 29 March 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

Successfull Alpha Striking negates the whole "location based damage" thing. Why aim for Arms and Legs and the left/right Torso when every strike is a kill?
Imho a good middleground between Alpha striking and disabling enemys part by part gives a better game!

There are lots of people who already take off a targets arms, legs, and side torsos before getting a kill, they are called bad aimers.

[Aym]

MuKen, on 28 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

A common complaint about alpha strike builds, and pinpoint aiming in general, is that battles are "too short", and more protracted build-up-the-damage style fighting is more fun. Maybe some people find this to be so, but the truth is taking a long time to down an opponent reduces the strategic and intellectual component of this game. I speak as an avid paintball player. In paintball, positioning, lines of fire and battle-lines, and flanking maneuvers are the lifeblood of the game. This is possible because it is one-shot-one-kill. If a fast player manages to get to a key flanking position, he can wipe out multiple opponents and doom the enemy team. This threat forces both teams to carefully watch battle lines and be aware of the "bigger game" at all times. In mechwarrior, this is harder. If a lone unit manages to get completely behind enemy lines, he's still not entirely guaranteed to take down an opponent UNLESS he's got a good alpha build. He's certainly not able to take down multiple guys in his moment of surprise. In most situations, he might do slightly more than his own value in damage to the enemy team before they turn around and wipe him out because he's alone (unless he's a light). If an assault mech manages to get into such a position, this should be a huge feat, and he should be rewarded for this clever maneuver by doing massive damage to the enemy team as a whole. Am I saying things need to change from where they are now? No, I think we have a pretty good balance between that, and having good drag-out fights the way it is now. But we certainly should not be moving in the opposite direction, as a lot of people are suggesting. EDIT: bolded the paragraph a lot of people seem to be missing

Cheers! Here's hoping I can get into a good position and be a threat on the field tomorrow at Paintball USA in Santa Clarita. I'll be the big guy in the blue Empire jersey.

[MustrumRidcully]

Corwin Vickers, on 29 March 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

There are lots of people who already take off a targets arms, legs, and side torsos before getting a kill, they are called bad aimers.

While a bit hyperbolic, it points out the flaw in MW:Os armour system. THere isn't really a good reason to shoot of an arm - you take out a few guns a bit earlier. Even in one the best case scenario, the Splatapult that has all the guns in the arms, the difference between taking out both arms first instead of the CT to disable the Cat, is 20 % in the damage taken from the Splat.

The Center Torso needs far more armour than it has to make "disarming" a really useful tactic. (or the other way around,t he arms need less armour).

With some thought, this is the best I could do on short notice on how "doubling" armour should have been done to account for pin-point precision:
1) Internal Structure Changes:
Head: +200 %
Center Torso: +200 %
Side Torso: +100 %
Leg: +100 %
Arm: +50 %
2) Armour Changes
Give the mechs bonus armour points equal to his current armour (for future mechs, each ton of armour adds twice the amount of armour points) and spread around across all hit locations as you see fit, still maintaining the rule that maximum armour per hit location may not exceed twice the structure points.