88 replies to this topic

[Gremlich Johns]

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

(Because this is the internet and "pics or it didn't happen", here is my profile.)

What mechs got you to your KDR the best?

[Vermaxx]

Helican, on 06 April 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. You or I have EVERY right to call something "cheese". Just because its allowed in the current mechanics doesn't make it "gospel". You are correct in saying that it is allowed. The part you seem to forget is that things change. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, well, you get the idea. And we have every right, almost to the point of responsibility, to point out when something isn't working as it should. Granted, most people do this in a less than proper manner, but it still needs to be done.

Prathios, on 07 April 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

As Helican pointed out, I believe I have every right to call something cheese when I see game mechanics being abused. I think any build that can destroy 100 tons of mech in .25 seconds is cheesy. I don't believe the game was made to allow that. I think a good player should be allowed to **** pit a mech if they try hard enough with repeated weapon hits. (Granted very few weapon hits.) But 1, should never be enough. I also think that in the current state of the game, these builds are even worse than usual with Splat Cats and Missile boats being so much less lethal. However I've never seen precedent in Battletech for a Jager to be able to out brawl an Atlas and yet that's where we are now. This throws the game balance pretty hard sideways. For instance, if they finally got drop weight to be fairly equal on both sides, the side that has more dual AC20 builds in its heavy slots has a serious advantage because it counters the enemies assaults so hard. Splat Cat's do almost twice as much damage, and I've never had a problem with them. Yeah, they suck to fight, but they never felt nearly as cheap and have nice big pods to blow up. Some limitation or balancing factor has to be introduced if these builds are to stay in the game.

BTW Vermaxx, I enjoyed reading your post. Regardless of our disagreements I think you did a good job with your response and your statements encourage thoughtful debate rather than 1 shot rebuttals. I think your 1300 games entitle you to calling yourself a Vet!

I still have to disagree with that.

Battletech turns were long, sometimes an hour for ONE turn. The "real world time" defined by the game for each turn was ten seconds, just like how DnD has a turn length, and Shadowrun has a turn length, etc.

I've seen Battletech games last hours that boiled down to mech fights of less than a minute. I've seen DnD games with boss level critters and massive spell effects and 'heroic' level characters, carried over from one play session to another for a combat session that was less than five minutes. I've seen Shadowrun planning sessions take three hours, just to get into shootout that was over in a literal (and in-universe) two minutes.

To bring it back to "this isn't intended for BATTLETECH," we played a game one night, it must have lasted five hours. About ten minutes into the evening, so in other words minute one of the actual game (past all the BS and talking and snacks), my friend's mech took a through armor critical to his chest-stored machine gun ammo. His mech was dead on the very first shot of the very first turn. He put his shoes on and went home.

MWO has eliminated a lot of the gimmick ways BT had to instagib. And despite the fact that we're running pinpoint accuracy, people do not fold as fast as they do in tabletop. An AC20 in tabletop cores out everything below a heavy, and even some of those. An AC20 here is impressive, but not world ending. I play a Hunchback in tabletop because it can KILL people in one hit. Two of them can kill people here (anyone) with a headshot. You still have to AIM to get that shot, and you really need the 40 damage to do it.

Tabletop mechs have a max of 9 head armor, and 3 internal. A lucky crit would take someone's mech out with 10 damage. Most mechs didnt run with 9 head armor, so 10 damage usually just killed a mech. So, yes, instagibbing someone is in Battletech as an integral function.

Now, if you don't feel it should be in MWO for whatever reason, that's different. We need to set the floor here though - YOU PERSONALLY feel large weapons imply a certain level of exclusivity per unit, and the rules should back this up. You want MWO to express this as a limitation in the number of large weapons one mech can carry, rather than the pre-existing systems of hardpoints, tonnage limits, and critslots.

You are perfectly entitled to this opinion, but we need to get to a level playing field - it is an opinion, not a testing imperative, to put forth these statements. Frankly I think TAC should be in MWO, but I admit that is going down the 'hardcore' route a little too hard. I DO NOT THINK it is too much to ask for PGI to scrap the current 'critical hit' system and go back to base rules, where every critical hit disables something, and the second hit destroys it totally (three for engines).

AC20 headshot kills require skill - just like a Scout or AWP in Counterstrike. I cannot tell you how many times I ran matches with the 'elite' guns and got nubbed out by some guy with a starter rifle. I cannot headshot reliably well enough to aim for it, so when I take twin cannons I just go for hits. Frankly I do that with all weapons, I rarely try aiming for anything smaller than gross body areas and almost never for head.

Certain mechs are easier to headshot than others. The gun barrels on these models might not be big enough. The Raven's arms have NO change coded in yet. A Spider probably should have a really big protrusion when it's carrying an ERPPC. Those are valid requests, and in fact ARE testing imperatives - these things should be in for fairness. If the Atlas is so easy to shoot in the cannon, every mech carrying an equivalent cannon should have a similarly sized model. Not IDENTICAL, since the Hunch/Centurion/Atlas all have differently sized AC20s, and the Dragon arms are ALL over the place. But yes, mechs should reflect large weapons in a model change and a larger hitbox.

Nonetheless, I still maintain that we as players have no right to tell other players what is 'acceptable,' and what is 'cheese.' If it fits in the rules, it is acceptable. PGI has done a reasonably good job of limiting what players can carry while still allowing flexibilty on a mech. MW3 had no rules - a mech was a hollow jigsaw frame, and you stuffed pieces in any way you wanted. MW4 used hardpoints, but they were based on the size of the original component. Meaning the LRM20 Catapult came away with TEN missile hardpoints. I think PGI has done a great job on the customization system.

No, these are not omnimechs. These are Lostech-upgraded Inner Sphere mechs in the best period of technological progress since the Exodus. Sure, we are running probably way more Endo and XL engines than fluff would suggest is appropriate, but I would like to point out that most of the current Hunchback models (and many other mechs) are only possible BECAUSE of Lostech. The ability to significantly modify a mech (or most often, modify at ALL) came ONLY with the Lostech breakthroughs and the Field Refit Kits. In game terms, this may cheapen omnimechs, but like I said Clan teamplay/integration/bacon is never coming (joke) so I don't care how it needs to be balanced.

The game lets you strip a mech, sub in two cannons for a varied loadout, and run with that. In a perfect world, people could just pick from the hundreds of mechs that were available to find one that was as min/max as they wanted. And believe me, not every mech was built to function in all range bands. However, we're stuck with the number of mechs PGI can model and release, so they have to give us some leeway with builds. Even still, they didn't give us anything we 'shouldn't have,' and put brakes on our ability to totally rework things to the level of tabletop.

I don't expect to convince people, I just wanted to add this to the thread. Running two AC20 is an incredibly powerful build, if you hit someone weakened, smaller than you, or in the head. If you hit a big mech in a torso or leg, 40 damage suddenly is less impressive. Of course, if I manage to connect with someone weakened, smaller than me, or headshot while driving my Pain Atlas, they are dead too.

Telling people they have to run 'varied' loads is censorship, it is not a form of balance or logical weapon use. I hate getting headshot. I hate running into a 6PPC Stalker. I hate running into a well piloted splatcat. These are valid builds and I accept sometimes I run into a more min/max player and I will die. Many of us are not interested in financially supporting a game that puts arbitrary limits on the way we mech. This game has to break some hearts to survive. Frankly I think they're not breaking enough hearts.

[Terradoss]

Vermaxx, on 07 April 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

I still have to disagree with that.

Battletech turns were long, sometimes an hour for ONE turn. The "real world time" defined by the game for each turn was ten seconds, just like how DnD has a turn length, and Shadowrun has a turn length, etc.

I've seen Battletech games last hours that boiled down to mech fights of less than a minute. I've seen DnD games with boss level critters and massive spell effects and 'heroic' level characters, carried over from one play session to another for a combat session that was less than five minutes. I've seen Shadowrun planning sessions take three hours, just to get into shootout that was over in a literal (and in-universe) two minutes.

To bring it back to "this isn't intended for BATTLETECH," we played a game one night, it must have lasted five hours. About ten minutes into the evening, so in other words minute one of the actual game (past all the BS and talking and snacks), my friend's mech took a through armor critical to his chest-stored machine gun ammo. His mech was dead on the very first shot of the very first turn. He put his shoes on and went home.

MWO has eliminated a lot of the gimmick ways BT had to instagib. And despite the fact that we're running pinpoint accuracy, people do not fold as fast as they do in tabletop. An AC20 in tabletop cores out everything below a heavy, and even some of those. An AC20 here is impressive, but not world ending. I play a Hunchback in tabletop because it can KILL people in one hit. Two of them can kill people here (anyone) with a headshot. You still have to AIM to get that shot, and you really need the 40 damage to do it.

Tabletop mechs have a max of 9 head armor, and 3 internal. A lucky crit would take someone's mech out with 10 damage. Most mechs didnt run with 9 head armor, so 10 damage usually just killed a mech. So, yes, instagibbing someone is in Battletech as an integral function.

Now, if you don't feel it should be in MWO for whatever reason, that's different. We need to set the floor here though - YOU PERSONALLY feel large weapons imply a certain level of exclusivity per unit, and the rules should back this up. You want MWO to express this as a limitation in the number of large weapons one mech can carry, rather than the pre-existing systems of hardpoints, tonnage limits, and critslots.

You are perfectly entitled to this opinion, but we need to get to a level playing field - it is an opinion, not a testing imperative, to put forth these statements. Frankly I think TAC should be in MWO, but I admit that is going down the 'hardcore' route a little too hard. I DO NOT THINK it is too much to ask for PGI to scrap the current 'critical hit' system and go back to base rules, where every critical hit disables something, and the second hit destroys it totally (three for engines).

AC20 headshot kills require skill - just like a Scout or AWP in Counterstrike. I cannot tell you how many times I ran matches with the 'elite' guns and got nubbed out by some guy with a starter rifle. I cannot headshot reliably well enough to aim for it, so when I take twin cannons I just go for hits. Frankly I do that with all weapons, I rarely try aiming for anything smaller than gross body areas and almost never for head.

Certain mechs are easier to headshot than others. The gun barrels on these models might not be big enough. The Raven's arms have NO change coded in yet. A Spider probably should have a really big protrusion when it's carrying an ERPPC. Those are valid requests, and in fact ARE testing imperatives - these things should be in for fairness. If the Atlas is so easy to shoot in the cannon, every mech carrying an equivalent cannon should have a similarly sized model. Not IDENTICAL, since the Hunch/Centurion/Atlas all have differently sized AC20s, and the Dragon arms are ALL over the place. But yes, mechs should reflect large weapons in a model change and a larger hitbox.

Nonetheless, I still maintain that we as players have no right to tell other players what is 'acceptable,' and what is 'cheese.' If it fits in the rules, it is acceptable. PGI has done a reasonably good job of limiting what players can carry while still allowing flexibilty on a mech. MW3 had no rules - a mech was a hollow jigsaw frame, and you stuffed pieces in any way you wanted. MW4 used hardpoints, but they were based on the size of the original component. Meaning the LRM20 Catapult came away with TEN missile hardpoints. I think PGI has done a great job on the customization system.

No, these are not omnimechs. These are Lostech-upgraded Inner Sphere mechs in the best period of technological progress since the Exodus. Sure, we are running probably way more Endo and XL engines than fluff would suggest is appropriate, but I would like to point out that most of the current Hunchback models (and many other mechs) are only possible BECAUSE of Lostech. The ability to significantly modify a mech (or most often, modify at ALL) came ONLY with the Lostech breakthroughs and the Field Refit Kits. In game terms, this may cheapen omnimechs, but like I said Clan teamplay/integration/bacon is never coming (joke) so I don't care how it needs to be balanced.

The game lets you strip a mech, sub in two cannons for a varied loadout, and run with that. In a perfect world, people could just pick from the hundreds of mechs that were available to find one that was as min/max as they wanted. And believe me, not every mech was built to function in all range bands. However, we're stuck with the number of mechs PGI can model and release, so they have to give us some leeway with builds. Even still, they didn't give us anything we 'shouldn't have,' and put brakes on our ability to totally rework things to the level of tabletop.

I don't expect to convince people, I just wanted to add this to the thread. Running two AC20 is an incredibly powerful build, if you hit someone weakened, smaller than you, or in the head. If you hit a big mech in a torso or leg, 40 damage suddenly is less impressive. Of course, if I manage to connect with someone weakened, smaller than me, or headshot while driving my Pain Atlas, they are dead too.

Telling people they have to run 'varied' loads is censorship, it is not a form of balance or logical weapon use. I hate getting headshot. I hate running into a 6PPC Stalker. I hate running into a well piloted splatcat. These are valid builds and I accept sometimes I run into a more min/max player and I will die. Many of us are not interested in financially supporting a game that puts arbitrary limits on the way we mech. This game has to break some hearts to survive. Frankly I think they're not breaking enough hearts.

I just wanted to express my admiration for this post. It's a rare forumgoing individual who doesn't take disagreement as a personal affront of some sort. Kudos sir.

I tend to agree with you on your point regarding breaking hearts (and conceivably on not breaking enough of them too). If you try to please everyone, nobody (or very few people) ends up liking the result.

However I'm also candid enough to admit that I don't play the game for anyone else. I play it for me and thus what I perceive to be fun gameplay takes priority and the opinions of others often take on a provincial cast. That's not intended to be arrogant or insulting, it simply is what it is. It's a game and I want to have fun with it.

The above often results in extreme levels of frustration for people when their vision of what is fun doesn't align with what they're presented with. Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, more a general observation at what I perceive the source of a sizeable portion of vented frustration relating to game balance to be.

Balance and enjoyment strive so hard to have a happy, meaningful relationship, but in reality they fight a lot along the way

[Gremlich Johns]

There may come a point in the game, though, where it ceases to be "Mechwarrior" in anything but name. That is the balancing act.

[Thedrelle]

I agree with OP, Well written, if a little lengthy.

The only concern i see is your comments on the AC20 cats and jagers. While I agree they are making a LOT of other builds weak, and they spoil the game for a lot, they are a huge risk.

[Aim-Bot]

Devs should read this and make these changes amedietly. This is pretty much that what everyone is thinking.

[jay35]

Quote

I think an great way to fix this issue is by nerfing alpha damage. Create an exponential increase in the amount of heating firing multiple weapons at the same time cause. This would bring dps back into the game and stop the alpha lunacy.

No. Learn to play. Alpha builds and alpha strikes have been a part of the MechWarrior series for as long as you claim to have been playing them, so you should know better. You take away or neuter alpha strikes and it just further neuters the ability of brawlers to be competitive, to be a discouragement to an enemy approaching their location, to spearhead an offensive, the list goes on. And when brawlers can't own their turf or punch a hole through defenses, you've invalidated a core game mechanic and team component.
You're basically on the opposite side of that coin from Vassago Rain.

--Someone who's been around this IP just as long as you have and played the games you listed and then some.

Edited by jay35, 13 April 2013 - 10:50 PM.

[Helican]

jay35, on 13 April 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

No. Learn to play. Alpha builds and alpha strikes have been a part of the MechWarrior series for as long as you claim to have been playing them, so you should know better. You take away or neuter alpha strikes and it just further neuters the ability of brawlers to be competitive, to be a discouragement to an enemy approaching their location, to spearhead an offensive, the list goes on. And when brawlers can't own their turf or punch a hole through defenses, you've invalidated a core game mechanic and team component.
You're basically on the opposite side of that coin from Vassago Rain.

--Someone who's been around this IP just as long as you have and played the games you listed and then some (MW2, MW2:Mercenaries, MW3, MW4, MW4:Mercenaries, MW4:Mercs with MekTek's add-ons, plus the silly MechAssault console games, and MW:LL). I also signed up for this account the day MWO first opened up to account creation. Ooooo that means something! Wait, no. Played a bit of the tabletop as well a couple decades ago, am in the MW:T beta, still solicit miniature commissions from artists, and have dropped significant money into MWO. Let me add 100 match scorescreens showing how much of a bad dude I am.
"Now that that's out of the way..." *shifts weight around like Chris Farley in his motivation speaker routine from SNL*

I don't think too many rational people are upset about alpha strikes, the issues arise because for many builds, the "alpha" totally hits an area on your mech roughly the size of a dime. There are far too many mechs out there that, even with a strong alpha number, cannot hope to match the destructive power of a pinpoint alpha simply because of their hardpoints.

[Artgathan]

Appogee, on 05 April 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

LRMs feel about right, and low enough to discourage LRM campers. SRMs feel maybe slightly under powered, but not much.

I disagree about LRMs - I feel they also need a buff. Currently I charge my Centurion through LRM clouds cackling manically as I get under the firer's minimum range and eat them alive. That shouldn't be happening! I should be running AWAY from an LRM boat, not directly towards it!