210 replies to this topic

[Deamonition]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Why do people want to boat PPCs? They want to boat them because PPCs are super powerful, not because the hardpoint system allows them to.

So the goal is to stop this.

I can either:

A. Completely change the entire games mechanics, yet still leave PPC boating on mechs that originally did it.
or
B. Address why people would want to use PPCs en masse in the first place.

You mix the causes and symptoms. A single PPC, in itself, is not that strong. It's the fact that you can put more than 4 on a mech that is.

So, I completely disagree with you.

[tenderloving]

Deamonition, on 26 April 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

You mix the causes and symptoms. A single PPC, in itself, is not that strong. It's the fact that you can put more than 4 on a mech that is.

So, I completely disagree with you.

I think at this point he is trolling. My last post exposes his terrible logic and I guarantee you he will ignore it.

If he's not trolling, he is unable to grasp the fact that at certain multiples, it impossible to fairly balance any weapon against 1 or 2 being carried by another mech.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 April 2013 - 12:57 PM.

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 26 April 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

You just painted yourself into a corner and exposed your faulty logic: The answer is yes. If another weapon was the "best weapon", they would boat that weapon BECAUSE THEY CAN. It doesn't matter what the weapon is; if it can be boated it will be.

Nerf the PPC all you want, another large energy will take its place. Nerf all the energy weapons without fixing hardpoints, and another weapon type will be abused. In a competitive environment players are going to min/max; it is up to the developers to create as many viable min/max solutions as possible.

No, they would boat the best weapon because it is the best weapon. Even with the restricted hardpoint system, there will be some mech that boats the OP weapon, and you gain nothing by the limitation. And all your customization lowering changes are for not.

I have not painted myself in any corner.

I am apparently failing to get you to understand that you can fix the issue without removing the possibility.

[Shumabot]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

Wow, I thought we could actually have a conversation apparently baby gets mad.

Having 100 choices to start doesn't lead to more choice in the end when all but 4 are bad.

We both agree you are lowering customization. So lets take it a step further and remove customization. Do you think that is going to add to build variety and make more mechs viable? Of course not. So how could limiting customization more ever lead to more viable builds or more mech variety? It wouldn't.

I never said it was one or the other. I simply state that through weapon balance, I can achieve a system with more choice and variety in the end.

When you can prove that players will run a crap build in a crap mech because it is the only build your system allows, instead of taking the boat mech and still abusing mechanics, I will stand corrected.

If your system also requires balanced weapons, then what is the point? The same can be accomplished without gutting customization.

BTW, most of your examples of exploited builds are trash pub stompers.

That's probably because there are a mighty 3 mechs used in highly competitive play, LL stalkers, quad PPC stalkers, and tri-PPC+gauss highlanders. A1s and lrm60 stalkers were top tier in coordinated teams once, but both were always inferior to alpha sniper builds in top end 8 mans due to the presence of ECM.

I'm going to do a little example:

The item contents available are A, B, C, and D.
We want the most points, A=5, B=4, C=3 D=2.

Right now, you picks mechs with optimization capacity, ergo you pick the mech that has the most A's. The stalker is the mech with the most A's available most of the time, in the end you can make an A, A, A, B stalker, 19 points, because you can fundamentally ignore most of the games limitations and simply take all the A's.

With hardpoint size limitations no mech would be able to reach capacitance of power 9, and no mech would be able to take entirely A items. That same stalker post limitations has available to it A, A, C, C. 14 points. Taken as a broad brush and applied across every mech this same pattern will appear. The only materially important outliers are mechs with the intended function of boating, such as the trip PPC highlander with its gauss arm or the Jenner F. It is within this framework that weapons would need to be balanced.

What you are doing is making the false (and idiotic) conflict between hardpoints and interweapon balance. The weapons could be 100% balanced, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. You'd still just see the mechs most capable of boating with the smallest frames because the opportunity cost of mixed loadouts makes them inherently inferior.

There is no way outside of hardpoint limitations to prevent a bleached metagame with no variety. Every weapon could be perfectly balanced with every other weapon, it wouldn't matter.

Intermech balance is the most important thing to try to assure because the mech chassis are the final arbiter of viability. When every mech has every weapon available all the time choice comes down to picking the best mech. Like I have said. Like everyone keeps telling you. You are being brainless, and yeah, that makes me mad. I don't like arguing with five year olds.

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

I am apparently failing to get you to understand that you can fix the issue without removing the possibility.

You're failing because you're wrong at a very basic level.

[Hellcat420]

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

That's probably because there are a mighty 3 mechs used in highly competitive play, LL stalkers, quad PPC stalkers, and tri-PPC+gauss highlanders. A1s and lrm60 stalkers were top tier in coordinated teams once, but both were always inferior to alpha sniper builds in top end 8 mans due to the presence of ECM.

I'm going to do a little example:

The item contents available are A, B, C, and D.
We want the most points, A=5, B=4, C=3 D=2.

Right now, you picks mechs with optimization capacity, ergo you pick the mech that has the most A's. The stalker is the mech with the most A's available most of the time, in the end you can make an A, A, A, B stalker, 19 points, because you can fundamentally ignore most of the games limitations and simply take all the A's.

With hardpoint size limitations no mech would be able to reach capacitance of power 9, and no mech would be able to take entirely A items. That same stalker post limitations has available to it A, A, C, C. 14 points. Taken as a broad brush and applied across every mech this same pattern will appear. The only materially important outliers are mechs with the intended function of boating, such as the trip PPC highlander with its gauss arm or the Jenner F. It is within this framework that weapons would need to be balanced.

What you are doing is making the false (and idiotic) conflict between hardpoints and interweapon balance. The weapons could be 100% balanced, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. You'd still just see the mechs most capable of boating with the smallest frames because the opportunity cost of mixed loadouts makes them inherently inferior.

There is no way outside of hardpoint limitations to prevent a bleached metagame with no variety. Every weapon could be perfectly balanced with every other weapon, it wouldn't matter.

Intermech balance is the most important thing to try to assure because the mech chassis are the final arbiter of viability. When every mech has every weapon available all the time choice comes down to picking the best mech. Like I have said. Like everyone keeps telling you. You are being brainless, and yeah, that makes me mad. I don't like arguing with five year olds.




You're failing because you're wrong at a very basic level.

that guy(3rdworld) not worth talking to, he is just a troll. nobody can be that dumb.

Edited by Hellcat420, 26 April 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Shumabot]

Hellcat420, on 26 April 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

that guy(3rdworld) not worth talking to, he is just a troll. nobody can be that dumb.

Most people on this forum are. I'm speaking through him to whatever developers may be listening (none).

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

You'd still just see the mechs most capable of boating with the smallest frames because the opportunity cost of mixed loadouts makes them inherently inferior.

And yet for all your rambling or just making things up, you still can't address that your system suffers the exact same problems we have now. Oh sure you would trade 3-4 mechs using PPCs for 1. I guess that is a giant leap in the right direction.
Or I could just nerf PPC boating builds until they are in line with others.

I am glad you came back. I do love it when people say they are going to do something.... then do the complete opposite.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 April 2013 - 01:23 PM.

[Shumabot]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

And yet for all your rambling or just making things up, you still can't address that your system suffers the exact same problems we have now. Oh sure you would trade 3-4 mechs using PPCs for 1. I guess that is a giant leap in the right direction.
Or I could just nerf PPC boating builds until they are in line with others.

I am glad you came back. I do love it when people say they are going to do something.... then do the complete opposite.

You can't nerf PPC boating to be in line with everything else because then anything that isn't boating PPC's will never take them. PPC's are marginally overpowered, but no fix is going to fix the inherent problem with mixing weapons of different range profiles and velocities. The moment PPCs are "in line" you'll still see nothing but PPC boating or no PPCs at all. The moment missiles are back to being "good" you'll still see nothing but mechs sacrificing everything to take nothing but LRMs or nothing but SRMs. You already see mechs taking nothing but single ballistic weapon types and lasers.

You know why? Because the relative power scales are meaningless, what matters is opportunity costs. Am I going to take a large laser and a PPC together? God no. I'm going to take two of one or the other so that I can reach my optimal engagement distance, target my optimal target and do the optimal DPS. Will I take PPCs and SRMs together? Hell no, if I'm using one the other is probably useless, turning me into half a mech most of the time. This is the problem with absolute customization, there is no incentive, at all, what so ever to not boat. There never will be. No change, no weapon balancing, no objective changes or map changes will ever change the inherent lost DPS of mixed loadouts. This is why you are wrong. This is why you're arguments are fallacious crap. Because you ignore the sky to shout at the clouds.

Quote

I am glad you came back. I do love it when people say they are going to do something.... then do the complete opposite.

Your empty head is a bullhorn so that I can shout at Paul. I don't care about you. You're one of those stupid libertarian facebook spam posts on facebook everyone shouts at to show everyone else on their wall what is wrong with the gold standard. You yourself are a lost cause, you're a caricature.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 April 2013 - 01:36 PM.

[Sybreed]

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Most people on this forum are. I'm speaking through him to whatever developers may be listening (none).

who knows if they'll listen, but I PMed an IGP rep to look at the results of this pool, even if the sample is small, the results are impressive.

To those using the old argument that there are canon variants that are boats and therefore boating should always be permitted:
Do they have weaknesses? Yup, they do. SRM boat : Stay over 270m. LRM boat (rare, but the Cat could be an exemple): Try to get under 180m. Laser boat: Use their max range inefficiency.

Now, what is the weakness of a quad PPC or Gauss + ERPPC mech? Gee, I'm having a hard time finding one. At long range, you're screwed, at close range, you're screwed. Even if you get under 90m, those PPCs will still hurt. Double AC/20? A freaking pain to deal with, even at double their optimal range.

What will happen once LRMs are fixed? They'll be boated to stupidity again and people will call them overpowered.

Would have people thought PPCs or Gauss rifles were too strong if boating them wasn't allowed? The reason PGI had to start balancing things left and right was because their system permitted abuse and such abuse showed imbalance that was never supposed to exist in the first place.

And finally, the only builds that would die with hardpoint sizes would be the Gauss/PPC, Gauss/AC/20 Cat builds that are plaguing the game at the moment, so I guess those who are against changing the system are those who are abusing it the most.

Splatcat will still exist if it makes you feel better. Nothing would prevent switching LRMs into SRMs or vice versa, but a SRM 6 rack won't fire an LRM 20 like we currently see and the 100 LRM Stalker is also a goner. An Atlas could still fit an LRM 10 in its SRM 6 rack or another combination of SRMs instead of its LRM 20 (let's face it, people are already switching the LRM 20 for another SRM 6)

Dear god, using more than 2 weapon groups shouldn't be a pain, it should feel like an opportunity to use your weapons at their best potential and prove you're a skilled mechwarrior. I'm a left handed player and I was able to configure my keyboard so using 5 groups is completely instinctive.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

You can't nerf PPC boating to be in line with everything else because then anything that isn't boating PPC's will never take them. PPC's are marginally overpowered, but no fix is going to fix the inherent problem with mixing weapons of different range profiles and velocities. The moment PPCs are "in line" you'll still see nothing but PPC boating or no PPCs at all. The moment missiles are back to being "good" you'll still see nothing but mechs sacrificing everything to take nothing but LRMs or nothing but SRMs. You already see mechs taking nothing but single ballistic weapon types and lasers.

You know why? Because the relative power scales are meaningless, what matters is opportunity costs. Am I going to take a large laser and a PPC together? God no. I'm going to take two of one or the other so that I can reach my optimal engagement distance, target my optimal target and do the optimal DPS. Will I take PPCs and SRMs together? Hell no, if I'm using one the other is probably useless, turning me into half a mech most of the time. This is the problem with absolute customization, there is no incentive, at all, what so ever to not boat. There never will be. No change, no weapon balancing, no objective changes or map changes will ever change the inherent lost DPS of mixed loadouts. This is why you are wrong. This is why you're arguments are fallacious crap. Because you ignore the sky to shout at the clouds.

If each weapon was viable within its role (assuming those roles are viable), then a ML boat, or SRMs and MLs, what ever you build, boils down to preference and desire on how to play a particular build. Weapons cannot ever be equal but they can be equal in how well they perform within their role. They aren't, and certain roles are not viable. DPS is a wasted stat, and weapons which should be short range powerhouses to balance out the longer range weapons, aren't powerhouses. SRMs balanced the equation cause they weigh next to nothing and do a ton of damage at short range.

People can run multiple PPCs cause there is no fear of anything closing. Before the massive missile massacre, any sniper worried about a Cent closing on them. They would kill them or seriously maim them before any help could arrive. The Stalker in question is one of the worst brawling mechs ever conceived. But brawling is not viable so it can thrive in the sniper game.

And a nerf to 9 heat would not screw builds using 1 or 2, though I find this funny because the 3D only uses 2. And nerfing their OP travel speed, would not screw anyone that can actually aim.

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

Your empty head is a bullhorn so that I can shout at Paul. I don't care about you. You're one of those stupid libertarian facebook spam posts on facebook everyone shouts at to show everyone else on their wall what is wrong with the gold standard. You yourself are a lost cause, you're a caricature.

And here I thought it was because you loved me. I has a sad.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 April 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

I have noticed lately in discussion of Missile Hardpoints that people are categorizing them into SRMs and LRMs.

Ideally to preserve a sense of flexibility, if Hardpoint Sizes are created I believe there shouls just be sized Missile hardpoints, not ones for specific types of missiles.

[Sybreed]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 26 April 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

I have noticed lately in discussion of Missile Hardpoints that people are categorizing them into SRMs and LRMs.

Ideally to preserve a sense of flexibility, if Hardpoint Sizes are created I believe there shouls just be sized Missile hardpoints, not ones for specific types of missiles.

yes, that's what I was also aiming for. People should be able to go with either SRMs or LRMs

[Shumabot]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 26 April 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

I have noticed lately in discussion of Missile Hardpoints that people are categorizing them into SRMs and LRMs.

Ideally to preserve a sense of flexibility, if Hardpoint Sizes are created I believe there shouls just be sized Missile hardpoints, not ones for specific types of missiles.

I most commonly see people want SRM6's, and LRM15-20 in large hardpoints and the rest of the missiles in small. This Prevents LRM60s and splat cats/knockoffs almost universally. A few assaults could still realistically bring an lrm50 to the table, but that's still a 17% drop in power and some tonnage that they're forced to use elsewhere.

Edited by Shumabot, 26 April 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Shumabot]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

If each weapon was viable within its role (assuming those roles are viable), then a ML boat, or SRMs and MLs, what ever you build, boils down to preference and desire on how to play a particular build. Weapons cannot ever be equal but they can be equal in how well they perform within their role. They aren't, and certain roles are not viable. DPS is a wasted stat, and weapons which should be short range powerhouses to balance out the longer range weapons, aren't powerhouses. SRMs balanced the equation cause they weigh next to nothing and do a ton of damage at short range.

People can run multiple PPCs cause there is no fear of anything closing. Before the massive missile massacre, any sniper worried about a Cent closing on them. They would kill them or seriously maim them before any help could arrive. The Stalker in question is one of the worst brawling mechs ever conceived. But brawling is not viable so it can thrive in the sniper game.

And a nerf to 9 heat would not screw builds using 1 or 2, though I find this funny because the 3D only uses 2. And nerfing their OP travel speed, would not screw anyone that can actually aim.

You're missing the point. If you nerf PPCs and buff SRMs then you're just going to watch things boating nothing but SRMs killing things boating nothing but PPCs if they get close and not if they don't. You're still only seeing everything boat as much as physically possible and you're still seeing a stilted and unhealthy metagame.

Quote

And here I thought it was because you loved me. I has a sad.

This game has killed all the love from my heart.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

You're missing the point. If you nerf PPCs and buff SRMs then you're just going to watch things boating nothing but SRMs killing things boating nothing but PPCs if they get close and not if they don't. You're still only seeing everything boat as much as physically possible and you're still seeing a stilted and unhealthy metagame.

I disagree. People used to run PPCs with streak or SRM backups. Specifically to engage an enemy if they closed. You do not see that anymore, as brawling mechs are not viable. and thus don't require countering.

If the entire goal of this exercise is to nerf the PPC build stalker, SRMs dominating them at close range is a pretty decent way to achieve it while not even requiring an actual nerf to PPCs or a nerf to any mech that uses an "acceptable" number of them. I understand you dislike this form of balance because it is still based on focused builds boating or min/maxing into a very tight niche, but that will happen regardless.

All that I am saying is that brawling mechs being viable will force PPC boats to counter them. Being a super hot, 2-3 alpha till overheat on a mech that is slow, usually not the best brawler, specifically when its weapons have min ranges and its torso twist is abysmal. Is it such a coincidence that PPCs and boating of them, have become more popular since the huge missile nerf after LRMaggeddon?

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

This game has killed all the love from my heart.

It will be okay, it isn't the end of the world.

This conversation is not really going anywhere though. You are going to remained unconvinced that the problem can be solved by weapon balance, just as I am not going to agree that implementing hardpoint sizes is the right choice or needed.

It is sad you felt the need to use personal attacks, while coincidentally accusing me of being the child, in a rather ironic turn of events. But hey, you're mad, a sign of passion. And if that passion is only for the betterment of the game, I suppose it could be worse.

[DeadlyNerd]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

Sounds like a pretty boring, when the entire point of mechwarrior is 2 pilots take the same base mech and do drastically different things with it. You basically neutered customization.

Oh right, 1 would boast PPCs, the other would boat MLs and the other other would boat 4 UAC20.
Essentially, that IS drastically different, but are they well thought out loadouts? Heck no.

Rest of your reply is irrelevant as my customization would be done in regard with the variant, not the mech's tonnage. That's how it's supposed to work in IS. Currently it's working like some semi frankenstein clan omni technology.

[TehSBGX]

As much flak as MW4 got, it did have a really good hardpoint system. Implementing something Similar while improving weapon balance overall will help this game a great deal in the long run.

[Zongoose]

I'd like to thank 3rdworld for taking the abuse in this thread so well. His point of view is not my own but he is making me think through my ideas further and refine them. Yes some of the comments may seem a bit \"troll-y"\ but by being a bit ridiculous it can sometimes spur the conversation into new areas, for this thank you.

I'd like to address your point that even with a hardpoint limit system that some mech's which by design can boat would be used exclusively as they would still be OP. I think you do have a valid point there but only in so far as it has made me realise something else about my argument. The best boating mechs would be able to achieve a 30point or 35point alpha at range (3PPC or 2PPC/Guass). This is now down to the twin PPC, Guass, AC20 levels we dealt with fine in previous builds. These did not appear overpowered, feared yes but not something to rip arms and legs off with 1 shot. We didn't fear them that much because at range LRM's would make them have to find cover and not be able to keep up sustained firepower. At short range SRM's were dangerous and would kill them quickly.

Evaluating that we see that the counters which made those builds dangerous, but only in the right circumstances, were symptoms of other weapons being overpowered in their own way (or balanced with the pinpoint damage dealers depending on your outlook). Even if we could get all the weapons in the game to this state of balance (which I think would be near impossible) you would still be rewarded greatly for boating as many of the same sort of weapon together to fire at the same time in a pinpoint alpha. SRM cats, SRM cents, medium laser cicadas and jenners, and all the above sniper builds we have been talking about.

I think that these builds are very effective but not very interesting. They don't require deeper strategy than getting to optimum range as intact as possible, preferably against a target whose optimum range is different, then hitting your 1 or 2 weapon group fire buttons. By having to take a range of weapons with different characteristics you would force more inventive gameplay and strategy as it would take a bit more skill to engage with several different weapons at once and still keep your damage up. As the weapons have different mount points, spread patterns, burn durations etc damage would again be spread over the target mech rather than concentrated into a single point, UNLESS you are a very skilled pilot who can concentrate and time his disparate weapons to hit the same place.

This still doesn't address the natural boats as they would be able to run single weapon groups that are effective but they would be rarer, you would still see SRM/LRM cats, PPC awesomes etc but that is their point. Not everyone would take one as although they do one thing well they suck in any other situation. It's easier to balance the PPC sniper awesome as it's chassis design limits it's brawling capability. The SRM/LRM cat has no supporting weapons so outside of it's normal engagement range it is helpless. The problem isn't with there being a couple of boating chassis, it's with them ALL being a boating chassis. If you could boat with an awesome but nothing else then you'd still take an Atlas for it's armour or ECM or twin AMS, a Stalker for its higher overall DPS or twin AMS and better frontal hit box. It's easier to balance the different chassis if they all have strengths and weaknesses which complement each other. It's easier to balance a few intential boating mechs with other downside characteristics than it is to balance boating in all mechs. This is hard to do when you remove the potential weapon loadouts from the mix of advantages/disadvantages. If any mech can take 3+ of a single large weapon then it has very little real difference in weapon capability to another.

[tenderloving]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

No, they would boat the best weapon because it is the best weapon. Even with the restricted hardpoint system, there will be some mech that boats the OP weapon, and you gain nothing by the limitation. And all your customization lowering changes are for not.

I have not painted myself in any corner.

I am apparently failing to get you to understand that you can fix the issue without removing the possibility.

You can't fix the issue without removing the possibility: If it's a good weapon with quantity X, it's a broken weapon when carried with quantity Y. This isn't that difficult. We have CURRENT EXAMPLES of this with the small energy weapons. This is not conjecture; we know it occurred in the past and it is occurring now. PGI even took steps to limit boating of small weapons, but for whatever reason they forgot the other end of the scale.

And yes you did paint yourself into a corner; if the PPC is no longer the best weapon then logically another weapon would be the best. If you can boat the best weapon, you will. This is a competitive game; the players are not going to police themselves to make the most engaging gameplay. This is the dev's job; and some sort of sized hardpoints are a solution that fixes current problems AND allows them to easily tweak in the future.

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Why do people want to boat PPCs? They want to boat them because PPCs are super powerful, not because the hardpoint system allows them to.

So the goal is to stop this.

I can either:

A. Completely change the entire games mechanics, yet still leave PPC boating on mechs that originally did it.
or
B. Address why people would want to use PPCs en masse in the first place.

But with out any additional hardpoint restrictions, as soon as 1 weapon is a clear top winner, everyone finds the heaviest mech that allows for speed to boat the weapon and boats them.

That cycle will always continue. Thats why you have to enforce a bit of diversity on mechs, except those who are boats themselves. But this can be balanced for those specific mechs to either be larger (Awesome) or have vulnerable locations (Catapults).