26 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

You are already in error/flawed with the AC/2 doing 2.

I wish people would stop trying to hard-convert TT numbers into MW:O. The changes made were, mostly, necessary (outside of the recent missile nerf).

If you REALLY insist - and I mean REALLY insist - please only cite from the Solaris dueling rules. They're the only ones that are roughly convertible and at least a good place to start compared to core TT.

[LordBraxton]

Sephlock, on 29 March 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Stop being reasonable. No one is going to listen to you.

People want QUADRUPLED armor, because they won't be satisfied until this is pillow fight warrior online: no flanking edition.

No flanking edition is already announced

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

I can't wait to taking a PPC that could hit a mech hard and spread its damage all over a mech like a missile...

Go out with AC/2s in chain-fire mode and see how fun that is, because that is what you are proposing.

Edited by CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, 30 March 2013 - 01:31 PM.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 30 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

I can't wait to taking a PPC that could hit a mech hard and spread its damage all over a mech like a missile...

Go out with AC/2s in chain-fire mode and see how fun that is, because that is what you are proposing.

NO! Don't you see? These people that have posted various suggested implementations of TT rules over the past 8 months have thoroughly explored every possible side effect of how these systems work in a real-time. And it would clearly be better to scrap the current working system for something untested and probably much worse.

Why can't you see this truth?

[Cebi]

Nonsense, on 30 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

I don't disagree, especially since the percentages are increases from TT values and not current values, but it's not that cut and dry.

If the object is to force player choice away from "CT CT CT" to "What's the best for my current situation", simply changing armor values won't do that, because everyone will simply target whatever kills or neuters someone the next-fastest. Hypothetically, how much fun will have been added to the game if matches devolve into multiple armless/torsoless mechs are bumping into each other at the end because arms are so comparatively easy to destroy?

So you put a premium on CT hardpoints then? What about 2-critical clan PPCs in the CT? If your arm weapons are vulnerable, is it going to be worth putting heavier weapons in them? What does that do to current mech hardpoint location balance? Is the HBK-4P insane now?

All I'm saying is, it's a LOT more complicated than "hey devs just increase armor by these amounts and it's all balanced, yay!"



It doesn't take "more aiming" when the shots are taken in close quarters because nobody dies outside 300m

It takes more aiming that just that one shot within 300m though...

[MustrumRidcully]

Nonsense, on 30 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

I don't disagree, especially since the percentages are increases from TT values and not current values, but it's not that cut and dry.

If the object is to force player choice away from "CT CT CT" to "What's the best for my current situation", simply changing armor values won't do that, because everyone will simply target whatever kills or neuters someone the next-fastest. Hypothetically, how much fun will have been added to the game if matches devolve into multiple armless/torsoless mechs are bumping into each other at the end because arms are so comparatively easy to destroy?

It's a funny image. Every match ends in Mechwarrior Paralympics. [/tasteless humour]

But more seriously - at least with the weapon damage figures and the armour figures I posted, I am not sure it's that likely to happen, the alpha strike potential is not that significant, which will - even with convergence - still lead to a lot of damage being spread. It will likely really be more a softening then a dismembering at range.

Quote

So you put a premium on CT hardpoints then? What about 2-critical clan PPCs in the CT? If your arm weapons are vulnerable, is it going to be worth putting heavier weapons in them?

The question might also be - is it worth storing your heat sinks there?

But a CT hardpoint might suddenly be worth more, yes. But you still only ever have 2 crit slots there. (Unless we get Compact Gyros and stuff like that perhaps?)

Quote

What does that do to current mech hardpoint location balance? Is the HBK-4P insane now?

The 4P could be one of the mechs where a "no-convergence" / "pinpoint-aiming compatible armour ratings" would shine. The 4P would be really awesome from a convergence point of view, but it also has a glaring weakness. With convergence in place, it's more a weakness than a strength, splitting those guns around the torso would be better.

But that would require already two incredibly significant changes to occur... And. Well, see below.

Quote

All I'm saying is, it's a LOT more complicated than "hey devs just increase armor by these amounts and it's all balanced, yay!"

It's never all that easy, but - we know the current system is flawed. We think something needs to be done. We have a suggestion on what we could start with.

We can try to go deeper and deeper into this rabbit hole, but the problem is that it can easily become a pointless exercise because we first need PGI to even accept that they have a problem in the game system.

Our track record is really bad there. They even failed to acknowledge that the convergence error that ballistics suffer from leading shots is a problem that needs fixing! And I am not sure anyone thinks that this is a reasonable aspect. (And I wonder if Host State Rewinding for ballistics will create its own issues?)

I am not opposed to exploring the whole topic further. I am actually interested in it enough that I am working as a pointless hobby theorycrafting experiment in my free time on a turn based Battletech with rebalanced weapons and pin-point aiming abilities.

[MustrumRidcully]

crabcakes66, on 30 March 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

NO! Don't you see? These people that have posted various suggested implementations of TT rules over the past 8 months have thoroughly explored every possible side effect of how these systems work in a real-time. And it would clearly be better to scrap the current working system for something untested and probably much worse.

Why can't you see this truth?

I have the feeling we explored the topic more deeply and thoroughly then PGI ever did. Might be a manpower thing, there are way more theorycrafters among the Beta testers than PGI has in its whole team, I think.
Doesn't mean it would be better, of course, but as long as PGI doesn't ever bother to address any of these topics ,and none of the critiques like you actually join the discussion and point out the flaws, I see only the existing problems we fixed and the anticipated problems we saw ourselves that we also have solutions for. Find me some we didn't see.