36 replies to this topic

[SgtMaster]

i think if you introduce wind physics to affect the ppc's flight path and also have it that it knocks down assault mech because of their large surfaces, this game would be balance...

also, having mechs sink in the snow would be cool...

[MustrumRidcully]

What if we kept convergence but made group-fire (e.g. firing multiple weapons together) impossible?

Convergence has some uses even if you fire only a single weapon. Removing it will make each mech and each weapon configuraiton have different firing behaviors, which would ultimately complicate things.

Forcing people to chain-fire instead of group-fire will solve most of the alpha-boating problems as well. Maybe we can steal an idea from the "more restrictive hard points" faction and allow only n number of occupied crit slots to be fired together. Let'S say we set the number to 2, and mechs using lots of smaller weapons are not too screwed over.

You can still set up weapon groups as you see fit, but if you press the fire button, only 2 crit slots (or a single weapon) worth are firing, the rest of your weapons (even in that group) are going on a mandatory, server enforced 0.2 second cooldown.

An alpha strike might be a special 10-second-cooldown ability that really fires all weapons with a 0.1 second cooldown beach each weapon.

[mike29tw]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 June 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

What if we kept convergence but made group-fire (e.g. firing multiple weapons together) impossible?

Convergence has some uses even if you fire only a single weapon. Removing it will make each mech and each weapon configuraiton have different firing behaviors, which would ultimately complicate things.

Forcing people to chain-fire instead of group-fire will solve most of the alpha-boating problems as well. Maybe we can steal an idea from the "more restrictive hard points" faction and allow only n number of occupied crit slots to be fired together. Let'S say we set the number to 2, and mechs using lots of smaller weapons are not too screwed over.

You can still set up weapon groups as you see fit, but if you press the fire button, only 2 crit slots (or a single weapon) worth are firing, the rest of your weapons (even in that group) are going on a mandatory, server enforced 0.2 second cooldown.

An alpha strike might be a special 10-second-cooldown ability that really fires all weapons with a 0.1 second cooldown beach each weapon.

This is really getting absurd...you're intentionally creating a user unfriendly interface that serves no other purpose than to handicap player's ability to control his mech. Not cool.

[Mister Blastman]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 June 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Convergence has some uses even if you fire only a single weapon. Removing it will make each mech and each weapon configuraiton have different firing behaviors, which would ultimately complicate things.

I'm not worried that it would complicate things. I'm excited that it would add skill to the game.

[Jman5]

Shumabot, on 05 June 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Thats nonsense, that assumes they can't just coordinate being charged. You'll lose half your mechs before you get there and then they'll just RAW DPS you to death. Assaults are too slow to survive the charge, most heavies and mediums are too flimsy to win the dps struggle once they've made it, and most lights are going to get one shotted.

You can't charge them with equal weight since they're ALL ASSAULTS, and you can't charge them with faster under weight mechs because once you get there they'll just kick your ***.

That's why I said:

Quote

Of course, I'm not suggesting a straight charge over 800 meters of open ground. You want to come in from the side and use various cover as you close the gap.

Look, assault brawlers and medium strikers are basically all I play and I lone wolf quite a bit. If it was as hopeless as you seem to be saying, then there would be no way I could compete against the caliber of players I face because nearly every game has these PPC stalkers and dual ac/20 mechs gunning for me. I know I'm doing something right and chose to share my opinion. Unfortunately, theorycrafting arguments about tactics can't really be decided one way or another on a forum.

So I'll just leave it at this and let people decide whether they want to dismiss it out of hand or not.

[Shumabot]

Quote

So I'll just leave it at this and let people decide whether they want to dismiss it out of hand or not.

It's not a dismissal out of hand.The top end metagame is still dominated by ranged alpha striking, and "special tactics" that work on a fraction of the games maps and require that your opponent not know where to set up his kill hill is only going to work in less competitive environments. You have one theorycrafted way of overcoming a disorganized team with only a few boats on a couple of maps. It's not broadly useful advice, it's non specific and it's obvious. You're basically just saying "play better".

Edited by Shumabot, 05 June 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

mike29tw, on 05 June 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

This is really getting absurd...you're intentionally creating a user unfriendly interface that serves no other purpose than to handicap player's ability to control his mech. Not cool.

IF you think that's more complicated, don't you basically agree that boats are easier to play then balanced/versatile loadouts?

Doesn't that imply that boats are always better than non-boats? What do you propose to do about that?
IF you're opposed to making the game harder for people, what does that mean over any attempt to curtail boating? It will always make the game harder form people, the moment you have mixed loadouts, you have to fire your weapons seperately and can't just group or alpha-fire them all anymore.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 June 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Shumabot]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 June 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

IF you think that's more complicated, don't you basically agree that boats are easier to play then balanced/versatile loadouts?

Doesn't that imply that boats are always better than non-boats? What do you propose to do about that?
IF you're opposed to making the game harder for people, what does that mean over any attempt to curtail boating? It will always make the game harder form people, the moment you have mixed loadouts, you have to fire your weapons seperately and can't just group or alpha-fire them all anymore.

Boating is better than non boating due to opportunity costs of mixed loadouts, and convergence. The fact that they're also easier is kind of a non issue. Introducing difficulty to the playstyle for the sake of simply introducing difficulty is a sideways and unpleasant way to deal with the issue. You don't solve a games balance issues by making the unbalanced thing less fun, that just makes people not play the game.

[MustrumRidcully]

Shumabot, on 05 June 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

Boating is better than non boating due to opportunity costs of mixed loadouts, and convergence. The fact that they're also easier is kind of a non issue. Introducing difficulty to the playstyle for the sake of simply introducing difficulty is a sideways and unpleasant way to deal with the issue. You don't solve a games balance issues by making the unbalanced thing less fun, that just makes people not play the game.

But would it really be less fun?

For once, currently an individual weapon can fire every 2-4 seconds, some even more often than that.
Thanks to convergence, that pretty much means - boats fire every 3-4 seconds, if there's anything to shoot at all, and others shoot a lot more. My change would force everyone to shoot every 0.5 seconds or so if they had a few guns and wanted to acutally use their rate of fire.

If you had, say, 7 guns on average on a mech, all with a rate of fire of 4 seconds, that would mean you'd need to place 7 shots in 4 seconds, or one shot every 0.57 seconds. Which is about what people need to fire with an AC/2 right now, and is not... pleasant.

But let's say we alter weapon ROFs - let's say a weapon shoots only every 7-11 seconds. Now you'd have to shoot every 1 to 1.5 seconds. That's somewhat closer to what people that mix 2 or 3 weapon types are used to right now. Sounds reasonable to me. And we don't actually enforce a strict 1.5 second limit - my suggestion was only a 0.2 second limit. If you fire a bunch of lasers with a beam duration, there is little harm in firing them in close succession, but when you want to snipe with a Gauss or PPC, you probably want to take some time between shots.

[OTC-Tumbleweed]

Guess I'm not really sure what all the grief is about concerning the so-called "pop-tarting" (or, for that matter, the "boating") complaints. I figure that if cannon and physics and all here are close to believable that these tactics and loadouts would be used by "real" mechwarriors. Why would they not? If the machines will be capable of these things in this "future" of warfare, why should they be restricted because an enemy force doesn't like them? Will there be some sort of agreement by all mechwarriors that no matter what, thou shalt not jump snipe or boat your weaponry? I doubt it. Ain't gonna happen. Every warrior out there will be looking for some sort of edge because to them, it's their life at stake, not just another regeneration next match. IF we are looking for realism, which I for one am, make things as real as possible. That means NO 3rd person for instance. We are piloting from WITHIN the cockpit, we are not sitting on the mechs shoulders or above and behind it.
I think also that there should be some shake as these powerful blasts of plasma lift these massive machines off the ground, but would not the gyro system smooth it out somewhat? Will jump jets only be designed to get a mech higher up some terrain? One would think that much of this will be figured out and tempered so that the pilot doesn't totally lose control of his/her ability to fire their weapons with some modicum of accuracy during the flight. To that end, I believe the current shake and random aiming has gone too far. If the mech developers in the future were to see this in their R&D, they would try and fix it knowing what their pilots need to be able to do.
If a mech is built to be able to "boat" weapons, then so be it! Too bad for those at the recieving end, I guess. The amazing thing about this Battletech universe is that so much thought has been put into it over the years, as though we are looking back on PAST events. It's been a "real" possible future for me since I got hooked on the whole "mech-verse" back in the "90's. Let's keep things as real as possible, warriors. If these battlemechs do come to life in the future, they still need to adhere to known physics and we need to understand that we will continue to master the physics and mechanics that will be needed to produce these war machines.
In summary, tone down the JJ interference some, stop whining about tactics that are very viable based on the canon we so love. Just my plugged nickels worth.

Yamamoto, out ................

[Shae Starfyre]

I vote for multiple little circles that represent what can converge coupled with a hold down cycle to pin point that convergence to the range that is optimal and possible for the mounts.

Not based on who you have targeted. Thus the skill is also in the building of your mech, knowing the mounts, and how to link the right weapons. This is the only thing that makes sense.

Heat build up should only and already be considered based on weapon location in proximity to other weapons that fire at the same time in relationship to heat sinks around that linked system, making boating best on mechs that have dispersed weapon mounts where multiple sinks can be in adjacent/same location as the mounts.

[Name140704]

Prosperity Park, on 05 June 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

I'm glad the OP likes the reduction in Poptarting, but the Jump Jet shake has nothing to do with High-Alpha boating, so PGI did not really miss the point. The points are unrelated.

Also, your disdain for the sliding heat scale seems to come from an assumed risk that all weapons will be treated exactly the same (the same penalties for multiple-firings being applied to MLs as PPCs, etc.). PGI said they would be investigating this on a weapon-by-weapon basis, so a stacking heat penalty being applied to PPCs won't really be ruining the game for Jenner Pilots in the slightest bit. That risk of all weapons being treated the same probably won't be actualized.

There have been several people citing the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy regarding how a stacking heat penalty would be physically unrealistic, and there are many people who say that physics don't really apply to big stompy robot video games. It really depends on what argument you're having at the time, but some people are curiously flexible with their adherence to how tightly physics needs to be coupled with the game. "Heat" in the context of MW:O is a penalty created by a gaming designer. It's a reflection of a physical concept, but because this is a game and "heat" was designed to be a game mechanic more than a realization of physics, then I think "heat" should be treated as a game mechanic primarily, and as a physical manifestation only on a secondary basis.

Since we're dealing with anthropomorphic Mecha, I feel like a good law to call upon would be the 2 Laws of Thermal Tissue Damage. Yeah, they're not laws, but still bear with me.

Firewalkers can walk across hot coals without injury because the amount of heat they absorb in their feet per unit of time is tolerable, but outright standing on hot coals will severely burn your feet because the amount of heat absorbed/unit time is too great. A Firewalker can spend a total of 6 seconds of contact time with the hot coals while walking across a fire bed, and this is acceptable without tissue damage - that's akin to Chain-Firing 6 PPCs. A Firewalker who stands in place on the hot coals for 6 seconds-straight will find themselves on the way to the Hospital for a skin graft and other possible surgeries.

Alternatively, and a much shorter example, touching a hot frying pan 6 times in timed-succession will only burn you a little bit, however touching a frying pan that 6 times hotter just once will burn the **** out of your flesh. I mean, a hot fryinfg pan is one thing.. they can cook meat, right? Now.. one SIX TIMES HOTTER? I mean, a glowing, white-hot, nearly melting steel pan... Imagine touching that once.

Those two situations serve well to explain why a sliding heat scale is applicable. The Devs aren't meaning to apply additional heat because the weapons are physically generating more thermal vibrational energy, they are applying an additional heat penalty as a reflection of the Harm/Risk of Harm your Mech is supposed to be experiencing. in this situation Heat is being used primarily as a game mechanic, and only secondarily as a reflection of the physical reality of Vehicular Warfare.

At least, that's how I see it....

You mean accommodation of heat.

[Shumabot]

Quote

But would it really be less fun?

Yes, because you're placing a nonsensical hardcap that violates weapon stats just to "cure" a specific problem (while introducing tons of confusing side effects). Players won't see this as "This prevents me from boating, that's good for the game overall!" They'll see it as "What the hell, why can't I fire my guns? This makes no sense."

Quote

For once, currently an individual weapon can fire every 2-4 seconds, some even more often than that.
Thanks to convergence, that pretty much means - boats fire every 3-4 seconds, if there's anything to shoot at all, and others shoot a lot more. My change would force everyone to shoot every 0.5 seconds or so if they had a few guns and wanted to acutally use their rate of fire.

Which just causes people to use multiples of the same weapon with minor differences and continues to confuse and enrage the player base. It also removes alpha striking from the game entirely, makes sniping useless, makes LRMs useless, makes SRMs useless, and basically just turns the game into "firehose the heaviest gun you can get".

Quote

But let's say we alter weapon ROFs - let's say a weapon shoots only every 7-11 seconds. Now you'd have to shoot every 1 to 1.5 seconds. That's somewhat closer to what people that mix 2 or 3 weapon types are used to right now.

No, it's not. People that mix weapon types are boating and alpha striking those weapons. You have 4 SRMs and a bunch of lasers on a stalker? You're going to have like 3 fire keys at the most, and those missiles are going to be on one. The moment you force SRMs to chain fire you're going to see them taken out of the mech entirely. This "fix" is ludicrous nonsense.

Quote

Sounds reasonable to me.

Well you haven't thought about it very ******* hard.

Quote

And we don't actually enforce a strict 1.5 second limit - my suggestion was only a 0.2 second limit. If you fire a bunch of lasers with a beam duration, there is little harm in firing them in close succession, but when you want to snipe with a Gauss or PPC, you probably want to take some time between shots.

Or you could just use nothing but Large lasers.

[MustrumRidcully]

Shumabot, on 05 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Yes, because you're placing a nonsensical hardcap that violates weapon stats just to "cure" a specific problem (while introducing tons of confusing side effects). Players won't see this as "This prevents me from boating, that's good for the game overall!" They'll see it as "What the hell, why can't I fire my guns? This makes no sense."

Global Cooldowns are not uncommon in the world of MMOs. This isn't exactly the usual type of FPS game, exactly because people carry several guns at once.

Quote

Well you haven't thought about it very ******* hard.

I have. But that doesn't mean I have all the answers yet. Especially since we're arguing in a vacuum. The game is very far removed right now from this concept, and we'll only be making guesses. Some educated, some pretty wild. Too bad you can't mod MW:O at home.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 June 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Global Cooldowns are not uncommon in the world of MMOs. This isn't exactly the usual type of FPS game, exactly because people carry several guns at once.

Stilted and boring combat is also not uncommon in the world of MMOs.

Quote

I have. But that doesn't mean I have all the answers yet. Especially since we're arguing in a vacuum. The game is very far removed right now from this concept, and we'll only be making guesses. Some educated, some pretty wild. Too bad you can't mod MW:O at home.

Were that possible there would be a version with hardpoint sizes and this entire discussion would be pointless because the problem would have already been solved.

Quote

Guess I'm not really sure what all the grief is about concerning the so-called "pop-tarting" (or, for that matter, the "boating") complaints. I figure that if cannon and physics and all here are close to believable that these tactics and loadouts would be used by "real" mechwarriors. Why would they not? If the machines will be capable of these things in this "future" of warfare, why should they be restricted because an enemy force doesn't like them?

Because in a videogame if no one thinks the battle is enjoyable THE UNIVERSE COLLAPSES.

[Tegiminis]

I am actually okay with high-alpha boats. They used to bother me, but that's just how the game is going to be played with MechLab in the way. The only way they could fix it - truly fix it - is by removing mechlab, which will never ever happen.

[Mister Blastman]

Tegiminis, on 05 June 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

I am actually okay with high-alpha boats. They used to bother me, but that's just how the game is going to be played with MechLab in the way. The only way they could fix it - truly fix it - is by removing mechlab, which will never ever happen.

Err. No. Methinks you should go play Mechwarrior 2 and Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries, completely through, and get back to me afterwards.

You'll see after experiencing them a whole new way of looking at things.